Delete additional action from version of Software Repository package

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

Annotations already convey destructiveness (destructiveHint=true) and non-read-only nature (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds the permission requirement but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as irreversibility, cascading deletions, or side effects. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate; the description adds some value but not rich context.

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 very short and front-loaded, but it is incomplete (truncated sentence). While concise, it sacrifices completeness and structure. A complete sentence or bullet points would improve clarity without adding excessive length.

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 an output schema, so return values are inherently covered. However, the description does not explain the effect of deletion (e.g., whether the action is permanently removed, what happens to the version), preconditions, or how it fits into broader workflows. For a destructive tool with 6 parameters and many siblings, more context is needed.

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%, meaning the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (additional action from version of software repository package). It also mentions the required permission, which adds clarity. However, the sentence is truncated ('custom…'), slightly reducing precision. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_version and delete_package.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context indicating whether it should be used for specific scenarios. The permission note is not usage guidance.

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