Delete a shared library

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it notes the operation 'may notify recipients or change tenant data' and requires confirm:true plus operator write opt-in. This meaningfully expands on the destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and readOnlyHint annotations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the action, endpoint, body requirement, prerequisites, and side effects in two sentences. No filler or redundant wording is present. The reference link is useful and does not bloat the description.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: endpoint, required confirmation, permission prerequisite, and potential side effects. It does not state the return behavior, but that is not critical for a delete operation. Overall, it provides enough information for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents path.libraryID and confirm, including confirm's const true requirement and operator opt-in. The description adds 'Body fields: none' and restates confirm:true, but does not substantially enrich parameter meaning beyond the schema. With 67% schema coverage, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a shared library' and gives the exact endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get, create, or modify a shared library. No ambiguity remains about what operation is being invoked.

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 gives actionable prerequisites: 'Requires operator write opt-in and confirm:true,' which tells the agent when it is permitted to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving some usage guidance implicit.

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