delete_repository

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations: that this operation is irreversible and that both the stable numeric ID and canonical owner/name confirmation are required as guardrails. This meaningfully augments what the annotations communicate.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then covers the critical safety constraints. It's appropriately sized for a destructive operation that needs clear warnings. No padding or redundant phrasing.

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?

Given annotations already flag destructiveness, and the description covers irreversibility plus the two-part confirmation requirement, this is reasonably complete for a deletion tool. With no output schema, one might want return-format info, but for a destructive delete operation, the key information (irreversibility, required confirmations) is all present. A slight gap is not specifying what happens on success/failure.

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 low (40%), so the description partially compensates by clarifying that expectedRepositoryId is the 'stable numeric ID' and confirmRepository is the 'canonical owner/name returned by get_repository'. This explains the semantics of the guardrail parameters beyond what the schema provides. However, account and hostname parameters aren't explicitly explained beyond their schema constraints.

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 tool permanently deletes an allowed repository, with a specific verb (delete) and resource (repository). It distinguishes itself by emphasizing the permanent nature and the required ID + owner/name confirmation, which is unique among sibling tools. The description also clarifies the scope ('allowed repository'), differentiating from other repo operations.

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 clearly conveys when this tool is used—when a permanent repository deletion is intended—and emphasizes that it cannot be undone by this MCP server. It implies the destructive context and the need for confirmation. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives (e.g., 'use update_repository or other tools for non-destructive changes'), which would push it to a 5.

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