delete_knowledge_cluster

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

The description discloses a key behavioral requirement (BAIC_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE=true) that goes beyond the schema, which is valuable. However, it does not mention whether deletion is irreversible, what data is affected, or any cascading consequences, leaving the full impact unclear.

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 extremely concise, with two short sentences that each add necessary information: the action and the required permission. There is no wasted wording, and it is well-structured for quick parsing.

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?

As a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks critical context such as irreversibility, what associated data is removed, or any safety net information, making it incomplete for an agent to fully assess consequences.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description carries full responsibility for explaining the parameter, but it does not mention 'knowledge_cluster_id' at all. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but no additional semantic value is added.

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 a specific verb ('Delete') and a specific resource ('knowledge cluster'), which unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_knowledge_cluster, get_knowledge_cluster, and list_knowledge_clusters.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when not to delete, or any fallback options). It only implies usage through the tool name and description, but lacks contextual direction.

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