delete_datasource_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but the description doesn't specify permissions required, whether deletions are permanent or recoverable, error conditions, or what happens upon success. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness for such a simple statement.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like what 'delete' entails operationally, potential side effects, or how to verify success. For a mutation tool with no structured support, more descriptive detail is needed.

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 input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning neither parameter is documented in the schema. The description adds no information about what 'datasource_id' and 'entry_id' represent, their formats, or how to obtain them. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving parameters semantically unclear.

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 'Delete a datasource entry' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (datasource entry), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other delete operations in the sibling list (like delete_asset, delete_story, etc.), which all follow the same pattern. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are related tools like 'bulk_delete_assets' and 'delete_datasource' in the sibling list, but the description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without such guidance, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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