Delete source

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description still adds value by spelling out the irreversible cascade (files plus search contributions) and the explicit-confirmation gate, which annotations cannot express. It stops short of describing downstream consequences like search index rebuild timing.

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?

Front-loads the destructive scope in the first sentence and keeps the whole thing to three sentences. The final sentence about credits and unknown outcomes is noticeably less relevant to a delete operation and dilutes the otherwise tight structure.

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?

With no output schema needed and annotations carrying the safety hints, the description supplies the two things structure cannot: irreversible cascade semantics and the confirmation requirement. An agent has enough to call this correctly, though the credit/retry caveat is noise rather than needed context.

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%, so account, confirm, and source_id are already documented in the schema itself. The description's mention of required confirmation loosely reinforces the confirm flag but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema states. 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 (delete) and resource (source) plus the exact blast radius: every file in it and everything it contributed to search. That cascade scope cleanly separates it from siblings like delete_brain_file and delete_skill without opening their schemas.

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 establishes the confirmation precondition, which is real usage guidance, but never names an alternative or states when to delete a whole source versus deleting individual files. The trailing 'runs can spend credits' caveat is generic boilerplate that doesn't route the agent between siblings.

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