harness_delete

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

The description adds 'this is destructive and cannot be undone' beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It also discloses URL extraction behavior. No contradiction with annotations (idempotentHint is compatible).

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no irrelevant details. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters (including nested object) and no output schema, the description is adequate but not thorough. It covers key behavioral aspects but lacks detail on param interactions and error handling. Schema descriptions compensate partially.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant semantic information beyond the schema, except for mentioning URL auto-extraction which maps to the url parameter.

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 'Delete a Harness resource' with specific verb and resource. It also mentions URL auto-extraction. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like harness_update or harness_create, the name and purpose are unmistakable.

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 implies when to use (when deletion is needed) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. The URL extraction hint is useful but does not replace formal usage guidelines.

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