delete_schema

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

It discloses that this is a soft delete, that the schema becomes inactive, and that it can be reactivated—useful context beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It does not mention side effects on dependent resources or failure behavior, but annotations already cover the destructive nature, so the added reactivation detail is valuable.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the soft-delete qualification immediately follows, making intent clear without wasted words.

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 single-parameter tool with a high-coverage schema and relevant annotations, this description is largely complete. It covers the key distinction from hard delete and the reactivation possibility, though it leaves minor gaps around what 'inactive' means operationally and how reactivation would be performed.

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 only parameter, schema_id, is fully documented in the schema as 'UUID do schema a desativar' with 100% coverage. The description adds no further semantic detail about the parameter, so the schema carries the load and the baseline of 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 the tool deactivates a schema via soft delete, which prevents misinterpretation of the 'delete' name as a hard delete. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'toggle_schema', which may also affect schema active state, leaving some ambiguity about which operation is intended.

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 explains the effect but provides no guidance on when to use delete_schema versus alternatives such as toggle_schema or update_schema. There is no statement about when to prefer this tool or what scenarios call for the soft-delete behavior.

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