Remove a component from the workspace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and does so well. It discloses the destructive nature ('Deletes files'), the confirmation requirement, the deferred effect on the live agent, and the side effect of dropping connection references unless another tool uses them. It also mentions the redirect-reporting behavior, which is useful beyond the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, then adds only high-value behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place, and the formatting with the confirm requirement is efficient rather than 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main workflow well, including deletion, confirm, push timing, and tool-specific side effects. It is incomplete, though, because 'pruneConnectionReference' remains unexplained, and the description does not clarify what output or result shape an agent should expect beyond 'reports topics'.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by enumerating the valid kinds and explaining the tool-specific connection-reference behavior, which helps interpret 'kind'. However, it does not explain 'name' semantics or 'pruneConnectionReference', leaving a meaningful gap for an optional parameter that the schema also fails to describe.

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 names a precise verb ('Delete') and enumerates the full set of component kinds (topic, knowledge source, tool, trigger, variable, flow), while scoping the action to workspace files rather than the live agent. This makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling add/edit/push/delete tools even without naming them.

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 gives useful context: the change is workspace-local, takes effect on the next cs_push, and confirm: true is required for deletion. However, it never explicitly tells an agent when to choose this tool over alternatives like cs_edit_topic, cs_add_tool, or cs_delete_connection, so routing must be inferred from the action semantics.

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