Delete a forge

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-readonly behavior, and the description adds meaningful specifics: access loss for users, repositories no longer readable, and a two-step confirmation process. This goes well beyond the structured hints.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: what the tool does, who can use it, and the critical consequences/process. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

For a destructive, two-step admin tool with full schema documentation and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: admin restriction, destructive impact, and confirmation workflow. Nothing critical 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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented. The description adds only a general 'two-step' hint that echoes the confirm_token schema text; it doesn't need to add more since the schema carries the load.

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?

Description uses the specific verb 'Removes' with the resource 'forge from Woodpecker', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_repository and update_forge. It goes beyond a tautology by adding consequences and administrative scope.

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?

Explicitly states this is 'Admin only' and notes the two-step nature, giving an agent enough context about prerequisites and process. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource and behavior are clear enough to route correctly.

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