Delete Vocabulary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not warn that this is an irreversible destructive operation, that deleting a vocabulary also deletes its terms and field references, or what permissions are needed. 'Delete' at least signals a mutation, which keeps it above a 1.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero waste, which is structurally fine. However, in this case the brevity shades into under-specification rather than economy, limiting the score.

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 destructive, one-parameter deletion tool with no annotations, the description should at minimum identify the parameter and warn about data loss. An output schema exists so return values are covered, but the destructive semantics and the meaning of 'vid' are both left unaddressed.

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 0% and the single required parameter 'vid' is completely unexplained in both schema and description. The agent cannot tell whether 'vid' is a numeric ID, a machine name, or the value returned by list_vocabularies, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a taxonomy vocabulary'), which is unambiguous against the many sibling CRUD families in this toolset. It does not, however, reference its closest siblings (create_vocabulary, update_vocabulary, delete_term) to clarify scope, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_term, and no prerequisites or cautions. The agent must infer everything about proper invocation from the name alone.

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