Delete Source

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the confirmation requirement, the possibility of provider charges/hosting/sharing/deletion effects, and the explicit instruction never to automatically resubmit unknown outcomes (reinforcing non-idempotency). It does not describe what happens to linked assets or the return shape.

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 purpose in the first sentence and keeps the safeguards short and scannable. The inline HTML anchor for the base URL is a minor stylistic blemish that does not hurt comprehension.

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, non-idempotent delete with no output schema, the description covers the confirmation prerequisite, side-effect risk, and retry caution. It omits downstream effects on dependent resources, but is otherwise sufficient to call the tool safely.

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 id, account, and confirm are already fully documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description adds no syntax or semantic detail about the parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 an ingested source file') and scopes it by id, which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_asset and delete_template. An agent can identify the exact target object without opening the schema.

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?

Provides clear operational guidance: explicit confirmation is required for this exact action and outcomes must not be auto-resubmitted. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., get_source or list_sources for verification before deletion), so it is strong but not fully routed.

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