Delete repository

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

The description goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by detailing exactly what will be deleted and what will not. It also discloses the two-step process, giving the agent an accurate model of the tool's behavior before invoking it.

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 tight and efficient: three short sentences that enumerate the deletion scope, state the key exception, and flag the two-step flow. Every sentence adds necessary information without repetition or filler.

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, high-stakes operation, the description covers the scope of destruction, the non-destructive boundary, and the two-step confirmation mechanism. The output schema and rich input schema fill any remaining gaps, so the description is complete for correct invocation.

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%, and the schema already explains repo_id and confirm_token well, including how to resolve a repo_id from an owner/name pair. The description's 'Two-step' note adds some context for confirm_token, but the parameter knowledge is largely carried by the schema, so a baseline score 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 clearly states the tool removes a repository from Woodpecker and specifies exactly which related resources are removed (webhook, pipelines, logs, secrets, registries, cron jobs). It also notes the forge repository itself is untouched, distinguishing it from broader deletion or forge-level operations.

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 makes the tool's use case clear: full removal of a repository from Woodpecker. The explicit list of all sub-resources deleted and the note that the forge repository is untouched provide good contextual guidance, though it does not name an alternative like delete_pipeline for single-pipeline deletion.

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