delete_module

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'delete' but gives no indication of permanence, cascading effects, required permissions, or any post-condition. The presence of workspace_slug in the arg list but not in the schema also adds confusion rather than transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core statement. However, the inclusion of a non-existent parameter (workspace_slug) is a structural flaw that wastes the reader's attention. It is concise but not clean.

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 2-param delete operation without annotations or output schema, the description offers minimal context. It omits any mention of return values, error conditions, or side effects. The parameter mismatch further reduces completeness, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke with full confidence.

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 adds 'UUID' type info for project_id and module_id, which is somewhat useful beyond the bare schema. However, it also lists workspace_slug, which does not appear in the input schema, creating a misleading parameter. With 0% schema coverage and this inconsistency, the description only partially compensates.

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 begins with 'Delete a module by ID', a specific verb-resource pair that exactly matches the tool's name and clearly distinguishes it from other delete tools targeting different resources. The scope is unambiguous despite the later arg list introducing an extra parameter.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it over other module operations like update_module or manage_module_archive.

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