raggy_delete_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the operation requires an API key and that it deletes a private knowledge base source. However, it does not explicitly state that deletion is permanent or irreversible, nor what the response looks like on success or failure. For a delete tool this is a moderate, not severe, gap.

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 three sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by usage conditions, the alternative, ID acquisition guidance, and the auth requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter deletion tool with no output schema, the description covers the core call scenario, the alternative tool, the ID source, and authentication. The only notable omission is explicit disclosure of side effects or irreversibility, which keeps it from being fully 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?

The schema already fully documents sourceId, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema by explaining that the ID identifies an uploaded private knowledge base source and by pointing to raggy_private_sources as the way to retrieve it. This helps an agent understand where the parameter value comes from.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Delete an uploaded private knowledge base source by ID.' It clearly distinguishes itself from raggy_forget, which handles individual memories instead. An agent can immediately understand both what the tool does and what it does not do.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use when the user asks to remove a specific source.' It also names the alternative tool for related but different cases ('For individual memories use raggy_forget instead') and tells the agent how to obtain the required ID via raggy_private_sources. This is model guidance.

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