Delete a gallery

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility and excels: it explicitly states the operation is destructive, has no undo, only removes the gallery record, and clarifies what it does NOT delete. This is exemplary transparency.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the destructive warning and then specify scope and exclusions. Every word earns its place with no fluff.

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?

Despite low complexity and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, side effects, and non-side effects. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly, especially given the sibling 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 coverage is 100% with the parameter 'slug' already described with an example. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating 'by slug', so it meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb 'delete' and identifies the resource 'gallery' plus the method 'by slug'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling deletion tools like delete_component or delete_image by stating it only removes the gallery record.

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 warns 'Destructive — no undo' and clarifies that it does not delete underlying images, which helps prevent misuse. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool, though the context is clear.

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