delete_concept

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond the obvious 'delete' by explicitly stating that empty parent directories are also removed (stopping at the bundle root), which is a non-obvious side effect that could affect the agent's decisions. However, it does not mention irreversibility or permission requirements, though the word 'delete' implicitly conveys destructiveness.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and the second sentence adds a crucial side-effect. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 simple single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description fully covers the main action and the important side effect. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists, and there are no complex prerequisites or other parameters to document. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter concept_id, and the description does not add further semantics beyond what the schema provides. It mentions 'concept document' but does not clarify the format or constraints of concept_id, so the baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('concept document from the bundle'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling CRUD tools by naming the delete operation and adds a meaningful side-effect detail about directory cleanup.

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 implies usage (deletion of a concept) but does not explicitly discuss when to use it versus alternatives like update_concept, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The verb 'delete' and resource indication provide enough context for basic usage, but no explicit guidance is given.

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