admin_delete_reference

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool is destructive and irreversible, but lacks details on side effects, error conditions (e.g., if ref_id does not exist), or confirmation behavior. The mention of 'Returns: Confirmation of deletion or error' adds some transparency, but overall depth is moderate.

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 concise, with a one-line purpose followed by prominent warnings. The args/returns section is structured but slightly verbose for a single parameter. Overall, it is front-loaded and efficient, though the args section could be condensed.

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 deletion tool, the description covers core aspects: purpose, admin requirement, destructiveness, and expected return. However, it does not address edge cases (e.g., invalid ref_id, permission failures) or verify consistency with an output schema (known to exist but not provided). This leaves gaps for an AI agent.

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 description provides minimal additional meaning for the 'ref_id' parameter beyond the schema, merely stating 'The reference ID to delete.' With 0% schema coverage, the description does not explain how to obtain a reference ID or any constraints (e.g., format, allowed characters).

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 a specific cached reference. The verb 'delete' and resource 'cached reference' are specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools like admin_clear_namespace or admin_get_reference_info.

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?

The description includes explicit warnings 'ADMIN ONLY' and 'DESTRUCTIVE - This action cannot be undone', which guide usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like admin_clear_namespace, though the specificity of 'specific cached reference' implies its intended scope.

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