delete_artifact_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses permanence, immediacy, irreversibility, the effect on share/preview URLs, and removal of graph connections. This is thorough behavioral disclosure for a destructive operation.

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 brief, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. It packs necessary warnings and usage guidance into just a few lines without redundancy.

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 simple parameter structure and presence of an output schema, the description fully covers the operation's purpose, consequences, and usage prerequisites. It leaves no important behavioral gaps.

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 schema covers the single parameter 'slug_or_id' with 100% description coverage, including format examples. The tool description adds no new parameter semantics beyond reinforcing that the value can come from list_artifact_groups, so baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete an artifact group from the user's HyperVault.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like create_artifact_group, read_artifact_group, and list_artifact_groups by defining the destructive scope and consequences (URL stops working, graph connections removed).

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Use list_artifact_groups first to find the right one' and warns to 'only delete when the user clearly asks.' This provides strong usage context and excludes accidental deletion, which is essential for a destructive tool.

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