delete_source

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It reveals the destruction-blocking behavior, the force override, backup rotation semantics, atomic validated saving, and refusal when the document is open in Word. This is exemplary for a destructive 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 compact, information-dense, and every clause contributes actionable information. The main action is stated first, followed by safety and backup nuances. No filler or redundant restatement exists.

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 tool with no annotations, this description covers the key decisions an agent needs: when deletion will be refused, how to override, backup behavior, save atomicity, and the Word-lock constraint. An output schema is present, so the absence of return-format details is acceptable.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's silence. It meaningfully explains tag and force, and clarifies backup=False behavior. However, file_path is a required parameter with no description in either the schema or the tool description, leaving its exact role and format to inference.

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 a precise verb and resource: 'Delete a bibliography source by tag.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_source, list_sources, and insert_bibliography. The reference to tag-based lookup adds specificity without ambiguity.

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 conveys clear usage context: deleting a source by tag, with behavior conditioned on whether the source is cited and whether force=True is set. It also warns about documents open in Word. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer this over related bibliography operations, so it stops short of full guidance.

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