planner_delete_bucket

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing the cascade effect ('ALL tasks in it') and the permanence, which annotations alone do not convey. It stops short of saying whether the plan itself survives or how partial failures behave.

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?

Two short sentences, the destructive scope front-loaded and the safety instruction second. No 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 destructive, irreversible mutation the cascade warning and confirm-first instruction are the most important content and are present. With no output schema and zero parameter documentation, though, the definition leaves a real gap around how to supply and validate the two required refs before committing an irreversible action.

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% — neither plan_ref nor bucket_ref is documented anywhere. The description does not explain what these refs are or where to obtain them (presumably planner_list_plans / planner_list_buckets), so the agent is left to infer both parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a bucket') and adds the critical scope detail that all contained tasks go with it. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling delete tools (planner_delete_plan, planner_delete_task) via the resource noun, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

'Confirm with the user first' gives one concrete precondition for invocation. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer alternatives (renaming/emptying a bucket, deleting the plan instead) or on how to recover from a mistaken call.

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