Delete a Micro record backup

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, but the description adds meaningful context: the deletion is permanent, applies to exactly one record-only backup, and does not mutate current project data or local source. This goes beyond the annotation signal and sets clear safety expectations.

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 sentence carries the core action, the scope, the permanence, and the safety boundary. It is front-loaded with 'Permanently delete' and contains no redundant words.

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?

Given destructive annotations, complete schema descriptions for all parameters, and an existing output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent what is deleted, that deletion is permanent, and what remains untouched, which is all an agent needs to decide whether to invoke it.

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?

All parameters are already well-described in the schema (backupId, sha256, confirm, path), so no heavy lifting from the description is required. The description's 'one exact' and 'record-only' wording loosely reinforces the backupId and sha256 parameters, but adds no syntax or behavioral 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 states a specific verb ('Permanently delete'), a precise resource ('one exact record-only backup'), and explicitly scopes what it does NOT affect ('without changing current project data or local source'). This distinguishes it from micro_record_delete and micro_backup_restore even without naming alternatives.

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 implies when to use the tool: when the goal is to permanently remove a record-only backup, not to alter current data. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as pointing to micro_backup_restore for recovery or micro_record_delete for deleting live records.

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