delete_repo

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It goes above and beyond by warning 'DESTRUCTIVE OPERATION: This permanently removes cached repositories and cannot be undone,' and details the full scope of deletion (all cached versions, metadata, analysis results, disk space, in-memory references). It also explains identification methods and consequences, providing excellent 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 well-structured with a concise opening statement, a prominent warning, and logically grouped sections (WHAT IT DOES, IDENTIFICATION METHODS, PARAMETER, USE CASES, NOTE). Every sentence adds value and the formatting enhances readability without unnecessary fluff. The front-loaded warning is appropriate for a destructive tool.

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 one-parameter deletion tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is thoroughly complete. It covers the operation's effect, the irreversible nature, the parameter format, example usage, and the re-clone requirement. This provides an agent with all necessary context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema provides only a bare string parameter name 'repo_identifier' with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates with a dedicated PARAMETER section explaining that it accepts a repository URL or direct cache path, plus examples of both. This gives the agent everything needed to construct valid input.

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's function: 'Remove a cached repository from the MCP server's cache, including all associated metadata and analysis results.' The verb 'Remove' is specific and distinct from sibling tools like clone_repo or refresh_repo. It also explicitly warns this is a destructive operation, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 use cases ('Clean up repositories no longer needed for analysis', 'Free cache space', 'Remove corrupted entries') and notes that after deletion the repo must be re-cloned via clone_repo. While it doesn't explicitly list excluded scenarios or alternatives, the context is strong enough for an agent to decide when to use it.

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