Delete a content key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that the operation is permanent ('Permanently remove'), irreversible ('no undo'), destructive, and returns 404 if the key doesn't exist. It also clarifies the deletion scope ('all its locale values'). This is excellent transparency for a destructive operation.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: action and scope, usage context, and error behavior. It is front-loaded with the action and contains zero filler words.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all relevant aspects: what is deleted, when to use, what happens on missing key, and the destructive nature. Nothing essential is missing.

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 the schema providing a clear description and example for the 'key' parameter. The description text adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'remove' and the resource 'content / translation key', with the precise scope 'all its locale values'. This distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like delete_component and delete_page, which target different kinds of resources.

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 gives an explicit usage context: 'Use when retiring copy that's no longer rendered anywhere on the site.' It does not mention specific alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear and actionable, which matches a score of 4.

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