delete_deck

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds context annotations cannot: the cascade scope (subdecks/cards), the human-in-the-loop authorization requirement, and the mandatory backup precondition. That is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the authorization gate and the backup precondition. No sentence is filler.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation; annotations cover the safety profile. Combined with the cascade scope, human-approval rule, and backup requirement, an agent has everything needed to invoke this destructive tool safely.

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 carry the load for preview_id. It partially does by establishing that the value must come from a prior preview step, but gives no format, lifetime, or validity details for the identifier.

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+resource ('Request deletion of a previewed deck') plus the blast radius ('including previewed subdecks/cards'), which distinguishes it from preview_delete_deck (non-destructive preview) and delete_cards (card-scoped). An agent can tell exactly which sibling to pick without opening a schema.

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 explicit conditions and prohibitions: only an explicit human 'Yes' in Anki permits execution, never approve on the user's behalf, and a verified backup is mandatory. It does not name preview_delete_deck as the required predecessor, but the phrase 'previewed deck' plus the required preview_id strongly implies the two-step flow.

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