Delete Knowledge Graph

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a destructive operation ('permanently deletes'), irreversible ('cannot be undone'), and has broad impact ('all its contents'). However, it omits details like permissions needed, rate limits, or error conditions, which would enhance transparency for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, followed by critical warnings, with no wasted words. Every sentence ('Permanently deletes...', 'This action cannot be undone.', 'Use with caution.') earns its place by adding essential context efficiently.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive mutation), lack of annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the irreversible nature but misses parameter details, permissions, or output expectations. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description should do more to compensate for the sparse structured data.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it adds no information about the 'graph_id' parameter beyond what the schema's title implies. The description does not explain what a graph_id is, its format, or how to obtain it, leaving the parameter's meaning unclear despite the low coverage.

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 the specific action ('permanently deletes') and resource ('a knowledge graph and all its contents'), distinguishing it from siblings like delete_block or delete_folder which target different resources. It precisely communicates the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 context with 'Use with caution' and implies usage for irreversible deletion, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like delete_block or delete_folder, or any prerequisites. It offers general warning but lacks specific comparative guidance.

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