Delete Glossary Term

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

Beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses concrete side effects: assignments to columns are removed while columns remain, there is no cascade, and the existence of children is a hard block with an exact error message. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then organizes caveats in a clear order: impact, precondition check, no-cascade rule, and remediation steps. The longer length is justified because every sentence conveys a distinct, decision-relevant fact for a destructive operation.

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 one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers side effects, prerequisites, failure modes, error text, and workarounds. The output schema exists, so return value documentation is not required, and the description leaves no material gap for an agent to 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 100% and the only parameter term_id is already described as 'The glossary term UUID.' The description does not add new meaning about how to obtain or format term_id, but it also does not need to; the schema carries the required semantic weight.

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 opening sentence uses a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a business term.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling glossary operations such as delete_glossary_term_type and update_glossary_term, while the rest of the description reinforces that it operates on a term and its assignments.

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 explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: check list_term_assets before deleting because a term with assigned assets is in use, and do not attempt deletion when the term has children ('cannot be deleted at all'). It also names actionable alternatives: delete the subtree leaf-first via list_glossary_terms(parent_id=...) or re-parent with update_glossary_term.

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