delete_datasource

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. It states the action ('Delete') but lacks critical details: whether this is irreversible, what permissions are required, if it affects related data (e.g., entries), or what happens on success/failure. This is a significant gap 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. There is no wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse quickly while conveying the essential purpose.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like side effects, error conditions, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool safely and effectively.

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?

The description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It specifies that the parameter is an ID for a datasource, but doesn't explain the ID format, source, or constraints. With one parameter and low schema coverage, the description provides basic context but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 action ('Delete') and the resource ('a datasource by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'delete_datasource_entry' by specifying the resource type, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other deletion tools (e.g., 'delete_asset').

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies usage for deleting datasources, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., datasource must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete if in use), or direct comparisons to similar tools like 'bulk_delete_assets'.

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