Delete Fork

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes well beyond that, disclosing exactly what is destroyed (all page copies), the merged-fork exception where only the history record is removed and live pages survive, and the required admin role. That is exactly the added behavioral context the description should carry.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: permanent destruction is front-loaded, the merged-fork exception follows, and the auth requirement closes. Zero 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?

For a one-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema to explain, the description covers the critical what-gets-destroyed semantics and the admin prerequisite. The only minor gap is failure/error behavior (e.g., deleting a nonexistent or already-deleted fork).

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 100%, and the single fork_id parameter is documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds only the implication that the fork is targeted for permanent deletion, no format or identifier detail beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a fork') and clarifies scope ('and all its page copies'). This distinguishes it conceptually from siblings like archive_fork, though it never names those siblings explicitly. Clear purpose, but no direct sibling routing.

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?

It explains a genuine usage split — behavior for merged vs unmerged forks — which helps an agent anticipate the outcome. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over archive_fork, purge_fork_copies, or remove_fork_page. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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