fork_delete

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

Even though destructiveHint is true, the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotation: the fork record is kept (closes, not erases), change-log entries are tallied as archived, the `reason` parameter records why, and the operation is irreversible. This gives the agent a clear understanding of side effects and constraints.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value: what it does, what it preserves, and the irreversibility warning. No wasted words.

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 moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers the operation's purpose, side effects, parameter semantics for `reason`, and irreversibility, including a comparison to fork_merge. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the `reason` parameter's purpose ('records why') and implies app_id and fork_id identify the fork, but it does not explain formats, defaults, or relationships beyond what the schema already shows. This is partial compensation but not comprehensive.

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 uses a specific verb ('Close') and resource ('an open fork') with a clear state ('as DELETED'), and distinguishes the operation from fork_merge by contrasting 'abandoned' with merge semantics. It clearly identifies this as a fork-closing action, not deletion of the record.

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 indicates when to use this tool ('the work was abandoned') and compares it to fork_merge with 'Irreversible, like fork_merge,' which helps differentiate from the merge alternative. It does not explicitly state 'use fork_merge for completed work' but the context makes the intended usage clear.

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