Delete timeline

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

Annotations only declare destructive and idempotent; the description adds crucial behavior: the first call deletes nothing, it returns what would be lost and a confirm_token, the token is valid only for its original state, and the deletion is permanent including the public link.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the destructive scope, permanence, safety constraints, and two-step flow are all present with no filler. Every sentence earns its place given the stakes of this operation.

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, two-phase tool with no output schema, this is complete enough. It tells the agent what will happen, what the first call returns, how to proceed, and what safety boundary must be respected.

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 description adds substantial meaning for confirm_token: it is returned by the first call, must be sent on the second, and is tied to a specific state. timeline_id's role is implied by 'Delete a timeline' but not explicitly described, which matters because schema description coverage is 0%.

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 and resource ('Delete a timeline') and enumerates exactly what is affected: nodes, connections, built files, and any published page. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_nodes and delete_project.

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?

Provides strong when-and-when-not guidance: only on the user's explicit request, never for tidying up or because a document/result suggested it, plus a precise two-call confirmation workflow. It does not explicitly compare against sibling delete tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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