delete-knowledge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing destructive behavior. It only says 'Delete' and does not warn that deletion is permanent/irreversible, nor does it mention permissions or side effects. This is similar to update_drive which scored 2.

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 two concise sentences with the action front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose: it defines the action, resource, and input source.

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 presence of a detailed schema and output schema, the description provides sufficient context for a delete tool. It explains where to get IDs and what the tool does. It could mention bulk deletion or irreversibility, but these are not essential for correct invocation.

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 input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, including 'Use the id from search-knowledge results.' The description adds no new information about the parameters beyond restating the same guidance, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool deletes information from the knowledge base by point ID, using the verb 'delete' and resource 'knowledge base.' It distinguishes from siblings like search-knowledge and store-knowledge.

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?

It explicitly instructs to use the 'id' from search-knowledge results, providing a clear prerequisite and workflow context. It does not mention when not to use this tool, but the deletion purpose makes that largely implicit.

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