Delete a gist

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

It explains irreversibility, exactly what is destroyed (git repository with revisions and database row), and that the first call does not delete but returns a short-lived token. These details go beyond the annotations and are critical for safe invocation.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying necessary information: the destructive action, the consequence, and the two-call confirmation flow. No filler and the irreversible warning is front-loaded.

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 definition is complete for a destructive two-stage tool: it tells the agent to get user confirmation, explains what the first call returns, and how to complete the operation. The output schema covers return details, and annotations cover safety flags, so nothing essential is missing.

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%: gistId is defined with source and 'not its title', and confirm_token is described with 'Omit on the first call'. The description repeats the confirm_token workflow but adds no parameter meaning not already in 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 opens with 'Permanently delete a gist', a specific verb and resource, and clarifies scope by stating the entire git repository and database row are destroyed. This clearly distinguishes the tool from delete_gist_files and update_gist.

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 clearly specifies the expected call sequence: first call returns a confirmation token, ask the user, then call again with confirm_token. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool in favor of delete_gist_files, so it stops short of a 5.

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