delete_index

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

The description discloses the destructive nature ('Remove') and what gets removed (index and cached files), which adds context beyond the annotation (readOnlyHint=false). However, it does not mention irreversibility, required permissions, or side effects on other tools.

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 a single sentence that immediately conveys the action and object. No extraneous words; it is efficiently written.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the primary behavior. It could be enhanced by noting irreversibility or impact on associated data, but it remains sufficiently complete for typical usage.

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 does not add any meaning about the 'repo' parameter beyond the input schema, which already describes it as 'Repository identifier (owner/repo or just repo name)'. With 100% schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Remove a repo index and its cached raw files' uses a specific verb ('Remove') and clearly identifies the resource (repo index and cached raw files). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'index_local' or 'verify_index' which are not about deletion.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other index-related tools like 'verify_index' or 'index_local'). No usage context or prerequisites are mentioned.

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