delete_list

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 known; the description goes further by clarifying blast radius ('the books themselves stay in your library; only the list and its entries are removed') and irreversibility ('Cannot be undone'), which annotations cannot express. It also discloses the return payload.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: action, blast radius, reversibility, return shape, and sibling routing. The destructive action is front-loaded in the first clause.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers what is destroyed, what survives, irreversibility, the return shape, and the alternative tool. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single documented 'id' parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics; baseline 3 applies. The description adds only the ownership constraint ('you own'), with no format or ID-source detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Permanently delete a list') plus the ownership scope ('you own'), which distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like delete_user_book and delete_journal_entry. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 routes the adjacent case explicitly: 'To take a single book off use set_list_book with on_list=false,' naming the alternative and its parameter. It does not spell out prerequisites (e.g. ownership checks) or when deletion is inappropriate, but the key sibling disambiguation is present.

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