liara_delete_source

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 states 'Delete' which implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but lacks details on permissions required, side effects (e.g., if deletion affects related resources), error conditions, or confirmation prompts. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with zero wasted words—'Delete an uploaded source' directly conveys the core action and resource. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple deletion tool, making it easy for an agent to parse 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, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like irreversibility, error handling, or return values, which are critical for safe invocation. While concise, it fails to provide sufficient context for a mutation tool in this environment.

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, with clear documentation for 'appName' and 'sourceID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or validation rules. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description doesn't compensate for any gaps.

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 'Delete an uploaded source' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (uploaded source), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'liara_delete_app' or 'liara_delete_object' by specifying 'source' as the target, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar deletion tools beyond the resource name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing source), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like 'liara_list_sources' for identification or 'liara_upload_source' for creation, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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