Remove Live Source

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

The description adds the behavioral trait 'permanently' beyond the annotations, confirming irreversible deletion. It also specifies the target context ('from a knowledge base'), which is useful. The annotations already provide destructiveHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to repeat those, but it does reinforce the destructive nature with 'permanently'. It does not mention any potential side effects like data loss, but that is largely covered by destructiveHint.

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, straightforward sentence: 'Permanently remove a live source from a knowledge base.' It is front-loaded with the action and includes the essential qualifier 'permanently'. There is no redundancy or irrelevant detail, making it appropriately concise 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's low complexity (two required parameters of simple string type, no output schema, and strong annotations), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the core action and scope. It does not explicitly state the effect on synced data or mention idempotency, but the annotations and schema fill in most remaining gaps. The description is adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema fully describes both parameters—rag_id as 'Knowledge base id' and live_source_id as 'Live source id'—with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional semantics or context about the parameters, so it provides no value beyond the schema. This matches the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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 tool's function: 'Permanently remove a live source from a knowledge base.' The verb 'remove' is specific, the resource ('live source from a knowledge base') is defined, and the word 'permanently' distinguishes this from pause/resume operations. It clearly differentiates from siblings like lyzr_livesource_pause, lyzr_livesource_resume, and lyzr_livesource_get.

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 usage for permanent removal but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives. It does not mention that pause is preferred for temporary disabling or that this is irreversible. The destructiveHint annotation provides some context, but the description itself gives no explicit 'when not to use' guidance, leaving the agent to infer from the name and sibling tools.

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