confirm_single_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it's a deletion operation requiring explicit human confirmation, with specific input validation ('DELETE' to proceed, 'CANCEL' to abort). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like irreversible deletion or error handling, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: a single sentence that clearly communicates the core requirement (human confirmation with exact phrase) and critical constraint (no automatic calls). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides strong context about the confirmation requirement and safety constraints. However, it doesn't explain what happens after deletion (success/failure responses) or potential error conditions, leaving some contextual gaps despite the clear operational guidance.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the relationship between confirmationToken and formId). The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: to confirm deletion of a single form after human confirmation. It specifies the exact action ('confirm single form deletion') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'bulk_delete_forms' and 'confirm_bulk_delete' by emphasizing 'single' deletion.

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 provides clear usage guidelines: it must only be called after human responds with the exact phrase 'DELETE', not automatically, and requires genuine human confirmation. This explicitly states when to use (after human confirmation) and when not to use (automatically), with no misleading guidance.

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