source_delete

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It explicitly discloses that deletion is permanent and irreversible, and that confirm must be set after user approval, covering the most critical side effects. It does not mention potential cascading effects or partial failures in bulk operations, but it adequately warns about the destructive nature.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, front-loaded with the core action and warnings, and includes a clear args section. No fluff or redundancy; every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (3 optional params, destructive operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the action, irreversibility, confirmation, and parameter meanings. It could mention success/failure semantics or atomicity for bulk operations, but these are not essential for a straightforward delete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining source_id as a single UUID and source_ids as a list for bulk, including that they are alternatives. It also clarifies confirm's role. There is a slight inconsistency: schema allows source_ids to be a string or array, while description says 'List', which could confuse agents expecting only arrays. Overall, it significantly improves schema comprehension.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Delete source(s) permanently' with a specific verb and resource, and adds the critical nuance of irreversibility. It distinguishes from sibling tools like source_add or source_rename by indicating a destructive action. The purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides usage context by stating 'Requires confirm=True' and 'Must be True after user approval', which guides when it's safe to invoke. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, and while it's obvious this is for deletion, it lacks formal comparison to other source management tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.