bookstack_recycle_bin_delete_permanently

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 clearly states the destructive nature ('this action cannot be undone'), which is crucial for a permanent deletion tool. However, it doesn't mention other important behavioral aspects like required permissions, error conditions, or what happens if the deletion ID is invalid, leaving gaps 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 that front-loads the core action ('permanently delete') and includes the critical warning about irreversibility. Every word serves a purpose with zero waste, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the irreversible action but misses details like required permissions, error handling, or confirmation of deletion success. For a high-stakes operation with no structured safety hints, more contextual information would be beneficial.

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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'deletion_id' with its type and purpose. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but with only one parameter and complete schema coverage, this is acceptable. The baseline for high coverage is 3, but the simplicity of a single parameter justifies a 4.

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 specific action ('permanently delete') and target resource ('an item from the recycle bin'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'bookstack_recycle_bin_list' and 'bookstack_recycle_bin_restore'. It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'from the recycle bin' and the irreversible nature, suggesting it should be used for final removal rather than temporary deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'bookstack_recycle_bin_restore' or standard delete tools, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing the deletion ID from list operations.

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