gitea_delete

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

With no annotations, description fully carries the burden. It discloses destructive nature, strict validation with field-level errors, and meta-operations (help, schema). This provides clear behavioral expectations beyond a simple 'delete' operation.

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 dense and structured with line breaks for each mode of operation. It is informative but could be more concise by grouping related info. The length is acceptable given the tool's complexity.

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?

With no output schema and complex meta-operations, the description provides essential context. It explains help, schema, and invocation behavior, and mentions field-level errors. However, it lacks examples of specific delete operations and return value formats.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description explains the 'operation' parameter in detail: values like 'help', 'schema', and '<OpName>' with specific behaviors. For 'params', it states validation rules. However, it does not enumerate all possible operation names or their required parameters.

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 'Gitea delete operations (DELETE) — destructive', specifying the verb and resource. It explains the operation parameter with help, schema, and invocation modes, distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on read, write, admin, etc.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on using 'help' to list ops, 'schema' for one op's schema, and '<OpName>' to invoke. Mentions strict validation and error behavior. However, lacks advice on when to prefer this over sibling tools or specific prerequisites.

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