Remove a component from the workspace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it states this deletes files, that the live agent is only affected on the next cs_push (deferred mutation), that dropping a tool also drops its connection reference unless shared, and that confirm: true is required. It omits auth/permission requirements and reversibility, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the deferred-effect caveat right after. The 'Reports topics that still redirect to a removed topic' sentence is the least essential, but it still conveys return behavior that is otherwise undocumented, so waste is minimal.

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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description must cover behavior and results, and it does address destructiveness, the confirm gate, side effects, and one return detail. It is nearly complete for a destructive workspace-editing tool, missing only permission requirements and a fuller account of the remaining parameters.

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 coverage is only 40% (kind and name carry no descriptions), so the description must compensate. It partly does: it enumerates the kind values and describes the confirm gate and the connection-reference side effect tied to pruneConnectionReference, but it never explains the pruneConnectionReference parameter's own semantics or the workspace parameter, leaving gaps.

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 gives a specific verb (delete) and an enumerated resource set (topic, knowledge source, tool, trigger, variable, flow) operating on workspace files, so an agent knows exactly what it removes. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the flow-specific sibling cs_delete_flow, which is the only sibling that overlaps in scope, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implied rather than stated: the parenthetical '(the live agent changes on the next cs_push)' signals the intended workflow of editing workspace files and then pushing, and 'requires confirm: true' signals when the operation actually applies. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over the flow- or connection-specific delete siblings, so it lands at implied usage.

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