Delete WidgetDash source

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds material specifics beyond them: the deletion is permanent and cascades to the source's data, it terminates any associated Live Activity, and it requires WIDGETDASH_WRITE_KEY. These are exactly the irreversible side effects and auth requirements an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what is deleted, the side effect, the usage constraint, and the auth requirement. The destructive action is stated first and nothing is repeated from the annotations or schema.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, its cascading consequences, the required credential, and when it should be used. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this safely is missing.

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% and there is a single required parameter (source_key) already documented with pattern, length, and a pointer to list_sources. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Starts with a precise verb+resource+scope: 'Permanently delete a data source (and its data) from the user's WidgetDash iPhone widgets.' It also names the cascading effect ('Ends any Live Activity for it'), so an agent knows exactly what operation it is. Sibling differentiation is only implicit (the schema points to list_sources), but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

'Only do this when the user asks to remove it' gives an explicit when-to-use condition and an implied guardrail against proactive deletion. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., list_sources for inspection) or noting prerequisites beyond the key, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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