Delete Deck

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so restating idempotency adds little. The one genuine addition is 'soft-delete', which tells the agent data is not physically purged, but the description leaves out whether the deck becomes inaccessible, whether shares/grants cascade, and whether there is any undo path.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the operative term 'soft-delete'. The second clause repeats the idempotentHint annotation, so it is slightly wasteful but harmless.

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 one-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core action but omits consequences an agent should know before calling: effect on existing shares/grants, whether the deck disappears from list_decks, and recoverability. Annotations carry the safety profile, so this is adequate rather than 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the single parameter is a self-describing UUID deck_id whose type and format are already declared in the schema. The description adds no meaning about accepted identifier forms or behavior on unknown IDs, so it neither compensates nor misleads.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Soft-delete a deck'), and 'soft' meaningfully distinguishes it from a hard delete or from patch_deck in the sibling list. It does not explicitly name a sibling it should be preferred over, which keeps it from a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to delete versus patch_deck, whether deletion is reversible by the user, or what preconditions apply. The only usage-adjacent information is that repeat calls on an already-deleted deck are safe.

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