delete_research_topic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive scope ('and all its data'), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention that deletion is irreversible, whether special permissions are required, or potential side effects beyond data deletion. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The Args block is a standard, efficient way to document the parameter. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or verbose text.

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 simple delete tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core action and scope. It does not explain return values, but the output schema likely covers that. However, it omits a caution about irreversibility, which is especially important for deletion operations. This is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 only parameter, 'topic', is described as 'Topic name to delete'. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's property name and type, providing no details about format, case sensitivity, or behavior when the topic does not exist. Since schema_description_coverage is 0%, the description does not fully compensate for the lack of schema-provided descriptions.

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 action: 'Delete a research topic and all its data.' This specifies the verb (delete), the resource (research topic), and the scope (all its data). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like save_research_data, search_research_data, list_research_topics, and get_topic_info, which have different purposes.

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 implies usage when deletion of a research topic is intended, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. There is no reference to sibling tools or conditions under which deletion is appropriate (e.g., 'Use this to permanently remove a topic').

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