Delete a gist

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description explicitly states that the operation is irreversible and destroys both the git repository and database row. It also discloses the two-step confirmation mechanism and the short-lived token, which is essential behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The destructive nature and the confirmation flow are front-loaded, and every sentence adds necessary information. The structure is optimal for a destructive tool.

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 covers all essential operational details: what it deletes, irreversibility, the confirmation token flow, and the need for user confirmation. With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, nothing is missing for an agent to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters, including that gistId is the ID field from list/search and that confirm_token is from a previous call. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Permanently delete a gist.' It also clarifies scope by contrasting with delete_gist_files (a sibling that removes files, not the whole gist). This is unambiguous and distinguishes the tool.

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 a clear usage flow: first call returns a confirmation token, user confirms, then second call with confirm_token. It advises asking the user for confirmation, which is a critical safety guideline. It doesn't explicitly contrast with delete_gist_files, but the destructive scope makes the intended use clear.

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