brain_delete_thought

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it discloses permanence, no undo, cascading deletion of note and links, and the need for human confirmation. This is strong behavioral transparency for a destructive tool.

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 succinct sentences front-load the destructive action and include all critical caveats—no undo, human confirmation, and usage restriction—with zero filler.

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 delete tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, irreversibility, confirmation requirement, and appropriate invocation context. It is complete for safe and correct use.

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 67%, and the schema already describes brainId and confirm well. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, and thoughtId remains undocumented, so baseline 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 'Permanently deletes a thought along with its note and links,' using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like brain_update_thought or brain_get_thought.

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?

Explicitly says 'Do not call it to tidy up on your own initiative — only when the user explicitly asked for a deletion,' giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It also underscores required human confirmation.

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