Delete Import Source

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally; the description adds nothing on top of that. It does not say whether previously imported content is removed, whether dependent import jobs are cancelled, or whether the operation can be undone.

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?

A single front-loaded phrase with zero waste, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision. Nothing is padded, yet nothing beyond the title is conveyed.

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 destructive mutation, the description omits the consequences that matter most: what data is destroyed and what happens to any content already imported from the source. Annotations cover the safety flags and the schema covers the ID, but the destructive-impact picture an agent needs before calling this is missing.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the required 'id'. The description contributes no additional semantics about the ID format or source of the value, making 3 the correct 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete an RSS import source'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_import_sources, create_import_source, update_import_source, and trigger_import_source. It stops short of 5 because it names no sibling explicitly, though the resource noun does the disambiguation work.

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?

There is no guidance on when to delete an import source versus deactivating or triggering it, no mention of prerequisites or side effects, and no warning about irreversibility. The agent must infer all usage context from the tool name alone.

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