delete_client_space

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers: it discloses that pages survive as floating pages, the portal/address stop resolving, viewer gates are removed, and unprotected pages can become accessible to anyone with the link. This level of side-effect and security disclosure is exemplary.

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 long but every sentence earns its place: the critical 'NOT deleted' caveat is front-loaded, destructive consequences are enumerated, and the archiving alternative is introduced exactly where it is needed. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers survival of pages, loss of portal/address, security implications of gate removal, pre-deletion safety steps, and the preferred non-destructive alternative. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and warn the user appropriately.

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 lone parameter id_or_slug is already fully documented in the schema, including the source (list_client_spaces) and the 'not the display name' caveat. The tool description does not add further parameter-level semantics, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage is appropriate.

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 a client space' — and then sharply distinguishes it from update_client_space by describing the archiving alternative. The extensive side-effect inventory makes it unmistakable what operation this is and how it differs from its sibling.

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?

It gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance: for a finished client, prefer update_client_space with archived: true, with the trade-offs spelled out (keeps portal/address live, frees plan slot, undoable). It also provides actionable preconditions — warn the user and set_password on pages that must stay private — which directly informs safe invocation.

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