delete_article

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds a meaningful behavioral consequence: 'Returns details for restoration.' This tells the user that deletion can be undone if the returned details are retained, an important safety nuance not captured by the annotations alone. This value-added context earns a score above the baseline.

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 succinct, with a single-sentence purpose statement followed by a compact parameter list. It avoids excessive verbiage and no filler. The structure is front-loaded with the main function before the parameters, making it easy to skim. A small deduction for the slightly verbose parameter list formatting, which is acceptable but not perfect.

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 existence of an output schema and the short parameter list, the description adequately covers the essential aspects: action, objects, and a note about return value. It doesn't mention error handling or permission requirements, but those are often expected to be outside the description scope if annotations/schema exist. The article knowledge base context is clear from the name and usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does so for both parameters: 'article_id: Article ID or database ID' clarifies the accepted value types, and 'instance: YouTrack instance (optional)' confirms the parameter's optionality. This is more than the schema shows, though not exhaustive.

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 a Knowledge Base article'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also adds a key detail—'Returns details for restoration'—which distinguishes it from other delete/functions among the siblings. Compared to delete_article_comment or delete_issue, this is clearly the one for KB articles.

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 implicitly indicates the action (deleting a KB article) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over, say, update_article or delete_issue. No alternatives are named and no conditions are given, so an agent must infer usage from context rather than from clear guidance.

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