delete_prompts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states that deletes are soft, prompts stop collecting data immediately, stay restorable for 48 hours, are then permanently removed along with their results, and non-owned prompts are skipped and reported rather than causing failure. This is thorough and non-misleading.

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?

Three concise, well-ordered sentences: the first gives the core action and scope, the second explains the lifecycle, the third clarifies edge behavior. Every sentence adds distinct information 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?

For a tool with one param, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: limits, deletion semantics, permanence, and non-owner handling. The only minor gap is that it doesn't specify the exact shape or content of the 'reported back' response, but this is not critical for correct invocation.

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 already documents promptIds as an array of 1-50 UUIDs sourced from get_results. The description adds meaning by clarifying the operational effect on the parameter values (skipping non-owned prompts and reorting them back) and by reinforcing the 'by id' nature. Since schema coverage is 100%, this extra context pushes it above the baseline 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 opens with 'Delete 1 to 50 prompts by id,' specifying the verb, resource, and cardinality. It further clarifies that this is a soft delete, which distinguishes it from a permanent deletion tool and from sibling tools like update_prompts or restore_prompts.

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 behavioral context for when to use the tool: it deletes prompts by id, is a soft delete, and handles non-owned prompts gracefully. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say 'use restore_prompts if you need to recover,' but the soft-delete and 48-hour restoration window effectively communicate the usage boundaries. The absence of explicit when-not-to-use guidance keeps it just short of a 5.

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