delete_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a destructive operation, and it says nothing about irreversibility, whether deletion is soft or permanent, required permissions, or what happens if the ID doesn't exist. A single clause on permanence would materially change agent behavior here.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb, zero padding. Its brevity is appropriate in form but leaves no room for the behavioral context this destructive tool needs.

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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits everything an agent would want before invoking it: permanence, error semantics, and post-delete state. Sibling tools in the same family (update_prompt, get_prompt) suggest a lifecycle the definition never acknowledges.

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 coverage is 100% with a single required 'id' string described as "Prompt ID," so the schema already does the work. The description's "by its ID" restates rather than extends that, and adds no format or sourcing detail (e.g., where IDs come 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?

Specific verb plus resource ("Delete a prompt") with the identifier-based selection made explicit, which cleanly separates it from add_prompt, get_prompt, and update_prompt. It stops short of stating any scope or side effects, so it is clear but not maximally distinctive.

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 guidance on when to use this versus update_prompt or how to recover a deleted prompt, and no prerequisites or confirmation requirements are stated. The agent must infer everything about the call context from the verb alone.

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