Delete a topic

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and non-idempotency, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful pieces of context beyond the annotations: that community state changes and that confirm=true is enforced. It still omits whether deletion is permanent or cascades to related content.

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 with essentially zero waste, and the destructive action is front-loaded. The trailing phrase 'for the user-requested action' is slightly vague but does not bloat the definition.

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 output schema, the description plus annotations cover the core: what it does, that it is destructive, and the confirm gate. It is adequate but leaves open the consequences of deletion (permanence, affected related entities), which an agent facing a destructive call would benefit from knowing.

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 100%, with topic_id, account, and confirm all documented in the schema itself. The description restates the confirm requirement but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Delete a topic') that unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling create_topic, update_topic, and get_topic. No sibling is named, but the name/verb pairing leaves no ambiguity about what it does.

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 confirm=true clause implies a when-to-use condition (only for user-requested deletion), which is a genuine usage hint. However, no alternatives (e.g. archive vs delete) or prerequisites are described, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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