delete_package

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses a critical side effect: deleting the package also deletes every assembly, plug-in class, and step. It does not mention permissions or reversibility, but the cascade warning is highly valuable and directly addresses the main risk.

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 two sentences long, with the critical warning front-loaded and no filler. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core action, the second highlights the cascading deletion.

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?

The description covers the most important contextual point (destructive cascade) and leverages the output schema for return values. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling delete tools and does not mention the optional environment parameter's role. For a destructive operation, one might expect more context on prerequisites or consequences, but the warning mitigates this.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description does not explain the parameters at all. The parameter names 'package_name_or_id' and 'environment' are somewhat self-explanatory, but no additional meaning is provided beyond the schema fields.

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 action ('Delete') and the specific resource ('a registered PluginPackage (Nuget package)'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_assembly and delete_step, which target lower-level components.

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 implies the tool is used to delete a full package but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives (e.g., 'use delete_assembly to remove a single assembly'). No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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