delete_knowledge_base

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'Delete' but does not mention permanence, cascading effects, required permissions, or any other consequences. This is a significant transparency gap for a destructive operation.

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 a single, focused sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simple purpose and well-structured.

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 the tool is destructive, has no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the effects of deletion, what the agent should expect in response, or any edge cases. The minimal complexity does not excuse this lack of essential context.

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 coverage is 100%: the parameter 'kb_id' is fully described as 'Knowledge base ID'. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies per the rubric.

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 clear verb + resource: 'Delete a knowledge base'. It is unambiguous in what it does. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'delete_knowledge', so it misses the explicit sibling distinction needed for a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites, no mention of irreversibility, and no distinction from similar tools like 'delete_knowledge'. This is a complete absence of usage guidance.

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