delete_space

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the operation is irreversible, which is the most critical behavioral trait for a delete operation. It also instructs to confirm with the user, indicating the expected interaction pattern. It does not mention potential side effects like cascading deletes, but for a simple single-resource delete, this is sufficient.

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 exceptionally concise and front-loaded: it begins with the action and resource, then immediately conveys the critical warning. Every sentence earns its place, with zero fluff or redundancy. The structure is ideal for quick agent parsing.

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 tool with a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete enough. It covers the purpose, the irreversible nature, and the confirmation requirement. It does not specify return values, but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the 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 description coverage is 100%, meaning the parameter `space_id` is already fully documented in the schema (including its irreversibility). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides; it merely restates that it deletes by ID. This matches the baseline expected for high schema 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 action ('Delete') and the resource ('a space by ID'). It is unambiguous and easily distinguished from sibling delete tools (e.g., delete_board, delete_lane) due to the explicit 'space' target. The phrasing is direct and leaves no room for misinterpretation.

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 a clear usage guideline by warning that the action is irreversible and advising confirmation with the user. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, the destructive nature is highlighted, making the appropriate context evident. This is more than implied guidance; it gives a concrete precaution for use.

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