Borrar tema

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new context: the deletion is irreversible, it is scoped to the classroom team ('Equipo del aula'), and materials are left orphaned rather than deleted. That side-effect disclosure is exactly what an agent needs before a mutation; only an explicit permission/authorization statement is missing.

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?

Two short sentences plus a bracketed severity/scope tag, with the risk marker front-loaded. Every element earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

For a two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the definition covers what is deleted, the irreversibility, and the effect on materials — enough to call it safely. It could still note whether a theme must be empty or what happens to items in it, but the core is complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both required parameters (theme_id, classroom_id) are documented in the schema, so the description carries no additional burden. It adds no meaning beyond the schema — a baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Borra un tema del curso' (deletes a course theme), which cleanly separates it from save_theme, list_course_themes and set_item_themes in the sibling list. It stops short of naming those alternatives, so it is clear but not explicitly differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the '[Equipo del aula · irreversible]' tag hints that this is a restricted, destructive operation, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose delete_theme over, say, set_item_themes to unassign materials. No prerequisites or exclusions are spelled out.

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