Delete an exact Micro record

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

Beyond annotations that already flag destructive and non-idempotent behavior, the description adds the crucial conditional 'Fails if the record changed,' which is a load-bearing behavioral detail. 'Permanently' restates destructiveness but the change-detection failure is new and valuable.

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?

One sentence that front-loads the action and resource, lists the key identity fields, and ends with the failure condition. No 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?

The description plus the confirm-required schema and destructive annotations give an agent enough to call this safely. Missing explicit mention of the confirm parameter and path default, but those are in the schema, so the description is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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?

With schema coverage at only 29%, the description partially compensates by naming environment, collection, scope, key, and version as the identity tuple, and 'inspected version' gives context to the version parameter. It does not explain confirm, path, or value formats, relying on the schema for those.

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 uses a specific verb ('Permanently delete') with a precise resource ('one exact project record') and enumerates the identifying fields, distinguishing it from sibling micro_project_delete which removes a whole project. The word 'exact' makes the scope 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?

It implies when to use the tool – when the caller has an exact record identity and wants a conditional delete – but it never names alternatives or exclusion cases, such as 'use micro_records to list records first' or 'use micro_project_delete for whole-project removal.' The guidance is implicit, not explicit.

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