delete-module

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

The description adds value beyond the destructiveHint annotation by specifying that deletion is permanent and cascades to all module items. This is important behavioral context not conveyed by the annotation alone, though it does not mention permissions or other side effects.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, the first stating the primary action and the second adding the critical consequence. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple delete operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a key behavioral trait (permanence/cascading). It could mention error conditions or prerequisites, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 descriptions already fully cover both parameters (courseId and moduleId), so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but this is acceptable given 100% coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the action (delete), the resource (a module), and the scope (from a course). It also differentiates from siblings like delete-module-item by noting it removes all module items, making the tool's purpose 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?

The description implies this is for deleting an entire module, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like delete-module-item for single items. The caution about permanence gives indirect context, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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