Hedgehog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully indicates the operation is permanent (irreversible) and requires explicit confirmation. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether child branches/challenges from sibling tools are also deleted), authorization requirements, or undo mechanics.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by a clear Args section documenting parameters. Both sentences earn their place. Minor deduction for informal 'Args:' formatting instead of natural language integration, but overall efficient.

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 output schema exists, return values need no description. However, for a destructive tool with multiple related siblings (branches, challenges, ADRs), the description lacks context on data integrity impacts and cascade behavior. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps for a workflow-critical mutation tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by documenting both parameters: 'name' explained as 'Spike name to delete' and 'confirm' with its requirement 'Must be True to confirm deletion'. It clarifies the semantic purpose of the confirmation flag (safety guard), though it could add format constraints or examples for the name.

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 'Permanently delete a spike investigation' provides a specific verb (delete), resource (spike investigation), and scope (permanently). The permanence qualifier effectively distinguishes this from the sibling spike_archive tool, clarifying this is hard deletion versus archival.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this versus alternatives like spike_archive (soft delete) or spike_rollback. No mention of prerequisites or safety considerations beyond the confirmation parameter itself. The description does not help the agent decide between deletion and other lifecycle actions.

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