delete_topic

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the word 'delete', but the annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the text does not contradict them. It does not describe permanence, cascading effects, or failure behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden on the description.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it is so terse that it contributes little beyond the schema and annotations.

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 two-parameter destructive operation, the annotations and schema cover the main safety profile. However, the description omits any statement about consequences, response behavior, or edge cases, leaving the agent with only minimal guidance.

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 description coverage is 100%, with 'cluster' and 'topicName' both described. The description 'Delete a topic' adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a topic'), making the core operation clear. It differentiates from sibling delete_* tools at the noun level (e.g., delete_topic_records, delete_group), though it does not explicitly say 'entire topic' or 'Kafka topic'.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_topic_records, nor are prerequisites (cluster/topic existence, authorization) or exclusion conditions mentioned. The description relies entirely on the tool name to imply usage.

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