Delete a custom data source

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

Annotations already cover destructiveness and idempotency, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the required permission (manage_data_sources) and the built-in-source restriction. It does not restate dry_run/confirm semantics, but those are documented in the schema.

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 first two sentences say the same thing ('Delete a custom data source' / 'Deletes an existing custom data source'), wasting space. The permission and built-in constraints are useful, but the definition is not front-loaded or tight.

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?

With an output schema present, annotations covering safety, and full schema coverage, the description supplies the remaining needed context: the built-in restriction and required permission. Sufficient for an agent to call correctly, though missing any explicit caution about irreversibility.

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%, so all three parameters (data_source_id, confirm, dry_run) are already documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable at this coverage level but not value-adding.

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 and resource ('Delete a custom data source') that clearly identifies it against the create/get/update/list data source siblings. The first two sentences are redundant restatements, but the meaning is unambiguous.

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?

Adds one useful precondition — built-in data sources cannot be removed — which implies when the call will fail. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., update_data_source to disable instead), leaving routing to inference.

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