Delete Source

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds real context beyond them: that charges/hosting/sharing consequences may apply and that unknown outcomes must not be resubmitted. That is a meaningful warning about irreversible and non-idempotent behavior. It stops short of saying what exactly gets destroyed or whether dependents break.

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 core action and the confirmation/policy warnings are front-loaded, which is good. But the middle sentence is generic boilerplate ('provider charges, hosting, sharing or deletion may apply') that spans many action types and is noisy for a single delete tool, and the embedded HTML-anchor base URL adds little.

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 destructive annotations present, no output schema, and full schema coverage of all three parameters, the description supplies the missing pieces: confirmation requirement, consequence warnings, and retry policy. Only the return/failure semantics of a failed deletion are left unaddressed.

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% and each parameter (id, account, confirm) is already documented in the schema. The description only echoes 'by its id' and the confirmation requirement, adding no new syntax, format, or ID-sourcing detail, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Delete an ingested source file by its id'), and 'ingested source file' distinguishes it from the sibling delete_asset and delete_template tools. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is implicit rather than pointed.

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 gives an operational precondition ('Explicit confirmation is required for this exact action') and a retry policy ('never automatically resubmit unknown outcomes'), which is useful guidance. However, it never says when to reach for this tool versus delete_asset or how it relates to list_sources/get_source, so the when-to-use guidance remains implied.

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