delete_schema

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds no further behavioral detail such as permanence, whether all versions under the subject are removed, or auth/rate-limit implications, so it contributes little beyond the structured 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 a single short sentence with the verb and object front-loaded. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

The tool is simple and the annotations cover the destructive profile, but the description omits important side effects of deleting a schema subject, such as whether all versions are removed permanently. With no output schema and no mention of prerequisites or fallback behavior, the description is adequate but not complete.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters, cluster and subject, so the schema already documents them. The description only repeats 'schema subject' and adds no extra semantic detail about parameter values or relationships.

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 concrete verb ('Delete') and a clear resource ('a schema subject'), making the action unambiguous. It also distinguishes this tool from sibling schema tools like get_schema_by_subject, get_schema_versions, and post_schema, which perform read or create operations instead.

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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no preconditions, and no exclusion criteria. Usage must be inferred entirely from the verb 'Delete'; nothing explains when deletion is appropriate or what conditions must hold.

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