lbb_fit_sources_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the blast radius ('the suggestions it filed stay') and the required user-confirmation protocol. It stops short of describing error behavior (e.g., unknown name) or permission requirements.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its consequence, then the safety protocol. No filler; each sentence carries distinct information.

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 destructive mutation with annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it conveys the side effect, the data that survives, and the confirmation requirement. Only minor gaps remain (permission prerequisites, behavior on an invalid name).

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 all four parameters are already documented, including confirm ('The same name again, to confirm'). The description reinforces the confirm constraint but adds no new syntax or meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Delete a fit source') and immediately characterizes the scope of the deletion: the fit stops reading its class, but filed suggestions persist. This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like lbb_fit_sources and lbb_fit_sources_manage without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit procedural guidance ('Ask the user first; confirm must repeat the name'), which is exactly the when/how context needed for a destructive action. It does not, however, name an alternative path such as disabling the source via lbb_fit_sources_manage instead of deleting.

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