ipt_delete_resource

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does state that the operation '[writes to the IPT]' (indicating a mutation) and limits scope to the IPT. However, it does not disclose the irreversible nature of deletion, potential cascading effects on associated data (mappings, sources), or that confirmation is required. The schema covers the confirm flag, but the description lacks explicit behavioral depth for a destructive action.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence. The '[writes to the IPT]' prefix is front-loaded and immediately signals a mutating operation, followed by the core action and scope. Every word earns its place; there is zero redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter deletion tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential 'what' and 'where' (IPT vs GBIF). It does not mention irreversibility or that the confirm parameter must be true, but those are partially covered in the schema. Given the tool's low complexity and the schema's completeness, the description is largely sufficient, though a note on the destructive side effects would elevate it.

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?

The input schema fully describes both parameters: shortname (with pattern) and confirm (with description 'Must be true to actually perform this action'). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds no extra parameter meaning; it merely confirms the action context. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Delete'), a clear resource ('resource from the IPT'), and adds a crucial scope qualifier ('never touches the GBIF registry'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ipt_delete_source, which targets a different entity (a source). The action and target are unambiguous.

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 provides clear context by explicitly scoping the operation to the IPT and excluding any GBIF registry interaction. This implicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (when deleting a resource from IPT) versus when not (if GBIF registry changes are needed). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or edge cases, so it falls short of an explicit when/not list.

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