Delete Lizard Git repository

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds real value beyond them: the exact collateral damage (branches, issues, pull requests, CI runs), the downstream consequence (services deploying from it stop getting new deploys), the privilege bar, and irreversibility. That is exactly the context an agent needs before an irreversible write.

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 destructive scope, then consequences, then preconditions. Every sentence carries distinct information and none repeat structured fields.

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 two-parameter irreversible delete with no output schema, the description covers blast radius, side effects, permissions, and consent. Nothing material an agent needs to call this safely is missing.

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 coverage is 50%: 'repo' is documented with a pattern and a repo_list reference, while 'confirm' only carries const:true. The description never mentions either parameter, though 'Get the user's approval first' loosely maps to the confirm gate. It neither adds format guidance nor compensates for the undocumented confirm flag.

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 precise verb and resource ('Permanently delete a Lizard Git repository') and enumerates the cascaded contents. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling deletion tools that target projects, services, workspaces, volumes, or sandboxes rather than Git repositories.

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 an actionable precondition ('Owner or admin only') and an approval requirement ('Get the user's approval first'). It lacks an explicit contrast with adjacent destructive siblings such as project_delete or service_delete, so the agent must infer which resource type is being removed.

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