delete_slx

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it uses the v4 endpoint, tombstones the SLX row, and triggers corestate reconciliation to clean up related rows. It also notes behavior matches the UI. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but the core behavior is well explained.

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 structured into three paragraphs, each serving a purpose: core action, endpoint details, and usage clarification. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. It could be slightly more concise, but no extraneous content.

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 input schema is fully covered, output schema exists, and the description covers behavior, usage, and parameter meaning, it is complete for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly. It addresses potential confusion about Git-branch scoping.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing example short names and workspace names, clarifying that parameters do not include branch/commit_message (removed from prior paths), and emphasizing the short-name format. This goes beyond the schema's simple descriptions.

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 performs a 'soft-delete' of an SLX from a workspace via the v4 endpoint. It specifies the resource (SLX), action (soft-delete), and scope (workspace). It distinguishes from siblings by clarifying it is workspace-global and not Git-branch-scoped, which differentiates it from potential Git-oriented tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for workspace-scoped soft delete) and when not (avoids Git branches). It advises callers previously using a Git-oriented delete path to stop passing branch/commit_message. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when to use them, though siblings include other delete tools like delete_assistant.

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