ncloud_sourcecommit_delete_repo_by_id

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description need not repeat basic destructiveness. It adds value by specifying 'Permanently delete' and the requirement that 'confirm=true' must be set to execute, which is not obvious from annotations alone. This contextual disclosure helps the agent understand the irreversible nature and the safety gate.

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 compact sentence with a warning emoji, conveying the essential destructive nature and the confirmation requirement. Every element earns its place; no redundant 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?

For a destructive tool with two parameters, full schema coverage, and annotations indicating destructiveness and idempotency, the description covers the critical aspects: the operation, the target identifier, and the confirm gate. It does not delve into return values or edge cases, but those are not required given the simple operation and existing 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?

The schema covers 100% of parameter descriptions, including 'Repository ID to delete' and 'Must be true to actually execute the destructive operation.' The description's mention of 'by ID' and 'Set confirm=true' adds no new semantic value beyond the schema, so it earns the baseline score of 3.

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 'Permanently delete a SourceCommit repository by ID' providing a specific verb, resource, and identifier method. The 'by ID' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling tools like ncloud_sourcecommit_delete_repo, which likely operates by name. The confirm=true instruction also clarifies the operation's semantics.

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 does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as ncloud_sourcecommit_delete_repo or other deletion tools. It implies usage when the repository ID is known but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance. The confirm=true tip is a usage instruction, but not about tool selection.

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