delete_contribution

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'Delete a contribution portal' but does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to related resources, or what permissions are required. For a destructive operation, this is insufficient.

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 one concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no fluff or redundant information. It could be slightly more informative while still being concise, but it is appropriately sized for a simple delete 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?

The tool has a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must fully contextualize the operation. It fails to mention irreversibility, required permissions, potential side effects, or return behavior. This is a significant gap for a destructive action, making the description incomplete.

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 has one parameter 'id' with a generic description 'ID of the resource', and the schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds only the context that the resource is a 'contribution portal', not specific details about the id format. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameter, even if minimally.

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 states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('contribution portal'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_contribution, create_contribution, and update_contribution. However, the term 'portal' is slightly ambiguous and may not match the exact resource type, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no warning about irreversibility. It only states the action without context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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