LightCMS

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, description adds critical context: cascade scope ('all its pages'), business logic constraint ('Cannot delete a merged fork'), and authorization requirement ('Requires admin role'). These are substantial behavioral additions.

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?

Three sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with the action ('Permanently delete'), followed by constraints and requirements. Each sentence conveys distinct essential information.

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?

Comprehensive for a single-parameter destructive operation. Covers action, scope, constraints, and permissions. No output schema exists, so return value explanation isn't expected. Could optionally mention if operation is synchronous or idempotent.

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 100%, with the fork_id parameter fully documented in the schema. Description doesn't add syntax, format, or examples beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage baseline.

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?

Specific verb 'delete' with resource 'fork' and scope 'all its pages'. Explicitly distinguishes from sibling archive_fork by emphasizing permanence, and from merge_fork via the 'merged fork' constraint. Absolutely clear what the tool does.

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?

Provides clear exclusion criteria ('Cannot delete a merged fork') and prerequisite ('Requires admin role'). Tells the agent when NOT to use it, though could explicitly name archive_fork as the alternative for non-destructive removal.

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