delete_resource

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default mcp: prefix safety check, the force bypass, and the noop return for non-existent modules. These are key behavioral traits that go beyond the schema and help the agent predict outcomes. It does not mention permanence or permissions, but the safety guard is well conveyed.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide key details. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It explains the core action, the safety default, the force option, and the noop edge case. It could mention permissions or what 'course module' entails, but for the complexity level, it suffices.

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 67%, so the description adds some meaning beyond the schema. It reinforces the idnumber semantics by tying it to the mcp: prefix and get_course_context, and explains the force parameter's effect. course_id remains undocumented in both schema and description, but it is a standard identifier. Overall, the description compensates well for most gaps.

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 action: 'Delete a Moodle course module by idnumber.' This is a specific verb+resource+identifier construction that distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_event. The additional detail about MCP-managed idnumbers further clarifies its scope.

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 clear context on when to use the tool, noting the default safety behavior and when to use force=true. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but it references get_course_context for finding idnumbers, giving practical guidance. No exclusions are given, but the context is clear enough for a simple delete tool.

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