delete_content_source

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say whether imported content from the source is also purged, whether the deletion is reversible, or whether confirmation/ownership is required, which are the material unknowns for a destructive operation.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded and free of filler, but it is under-specified rather than efficient — the terseness costs information an agent needs for a destructive call.

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 tool with no output schema and cascade implications for imported content, the definition is materially incomplete: it leaves open what gets destroyed downstream, whether retries are safe given idempotentHint=false, and what to do on failure. The annotations carry the safety signal but not the operational consequences.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the id field as "Content source ID." The description only echoes the resource name and adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance, so the baseline of 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?

"Remove a content source" states a specific verb and resource, which is enough for an agent to know it deletes a content source record by ID. It does not differentiate from nearby siblings like delete_post or delete_account_group, or clarify its relationship to list_content_sources/add_content_source, but the resource name is unambiguous on its own.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternatives (remove_connections_from_group-style surgical removal vs this full delete). The agent must infer entirely from the tool name when deletion is appropriate versus adding/listing a source.

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