Delete Prismism Artifact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the destructive, irreversible nature of the operation ('Permanently delete', 'cannot be undone'). However, it omits other critical behaviors such as authorization requirements, what happens if the ID doesn't exist, or whether deletion cascades to related resources.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first establishes the action and scope; the second provides the critical safety warning. Every word earns its place and the irreversibility warning is appropriately emphasized.

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 single-parameter destructive operation without output schema, the description covers the essential safety warning. However, given the lack of annotations, it could improve by mentioning error conditions (e.g., 'fails if artifact does not exist') or permission requirements to be fully complete.

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 100% description coverage ('Artifact ID to delete'), establishing a baseline of 3. The description does not add additional context about the ID format, validation rules, or how to obtain valid IDs, relying entirely on the schema.

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 resource ('artifact'), matching the tool name. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'prismism_update' or indicate when deletion is preferable to other lifecycle operations.

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 irreversibility warning ('This cannot be undone') provides an implied 'when-not' (don't use if recovery might be needed). However, it lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites (e.g., checking existence first) or when to use 'update' versus 'delete' versus 'unpublish'.

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