delete_record

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-idempotent, and the description adds substantial context: permanence, the two-step confirmation mechanism, and the token's role. This is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs beyond the structured annotations.

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, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the destructive nature and then explains the gating protocol. There is no filler, and every clause carries essential behavioral information.

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-step tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical interaction flow and irreversibility. It stops short of specifying the shape of the token response or any post-deletion confirmation, but the essential calling protocol is fully conveyed.

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 input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, describing record_id and confirm_token clearly. The description reinforces the confirm_token semantics but does not add new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already contains.

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 the exact operation ('Permanently delete a record') with a clear resource and irreversible effect. The description also distinguishes this from the sibling read/summarize/append tools by emphasizing deletion and the confirmation gate.

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 communicates that deletion is not immediate: the first call generates a confirm_token and only a second call with that token actually deletes. It implicitly tells an agent to never expect deletion on the first call, though it does not explicitly enumerate when not to use the tool.

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