delete_resource

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose a crucial trait -- that this is a demo where deletion is only recorded, not actually performed. It omits what 'recorded' means in practice, whether real deletion is ever possible, and what permissions or side effects apply.

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?

One short sentence with the important operation front-loaded and the demo caveat attached immediately. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness borders on under-specification.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the demo caveat is a useful addition for a destructive-sounding tool. However, ambiguity about what 'resource' identifies and the absence of any safety/permission context leave real gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotations.

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 0% for the single required 'resource' parameter, and the description says nothing about identifier format, accepted values, or examples. With one undocumented parameter, the description should compensate and does not.

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?

States the specific verb+resource ('Delete a resource'), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like read_file, publish, send_email and purchase. The only weakness is that 'resource' stays abstract and the description never says what kind of resource is meant.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no confirmation/irreversibility note. The only usage-adjacent text is the '(demo: only recorded)' caveat, which explains behavior rather than selection.

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