article_delete_data

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, etc.), notably the irreversible nature ('IRREVERSIBLE — the key is removed permanently'), the force requirement, and the server-protected key restriction. No contradictions with annotations.

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 long, each sentence providing essential information without fluff. It is front-loaded with the main action and logically structured.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: action, irreversibility, force requirement, and key restrictions. It does not specify the expected return status (e.g., 204), but this is not critical given the lack of output schema. Slightly more detail on the response could improve completeness.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage (only the 'force' parameter has a schema description), the description adds value by explicitly stating that force must be true to execute the deletion. However, it does not detail the 'site', 'article_id', or 'key' parameters beyond their path usage, which the schema already provides as required. The baseline is 3 due to low coverage, and the description partially compensates.

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 clearly states the tool deletes a specific key from an article's data, including the HTTP method and path. It distinguishes itself from siblings like article_delete (which deletes entire articles) and article_set_data (which sets data).

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 explains that force=true is required and that internal_ keys are rejected, providing clear usage conditions. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives or state when to use it over article_set_data or article_delete, but the context from sibling names offers implicit guidance.

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