Delete a resource record

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation is known. The description goes beyond by detailing refusal conditions (dependent records, last admin, own account) and the force override effect. It also mentions the restore capability, adding useful context. However, it does not explain the error format or what happens on successful delete (e.g., return value), but given annotations, this is adequate.

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 compact, two sentences, with key usage conditions front-loaded. It includes important exclusions and alternatives without fluff. Slight deduction for being dense but not overly long; every sentence earns its place.

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 complexity (5 params, enums) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the critical usage semantics: confirmation, force, dry_run (via get_references), and resource type. It mentions describe_resource for fields, which helps. It lacks details on return values, but that's not required if no output schema. Overall, it is fairly complete for a destructive tool.

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 description coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description in the schema. The description adds minimal extra: for id, it mentions 'or name, for tags' which is not in the schema. Other parameters are already well documented. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries most of the burden.

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 action: 'Delete a record by id (or name, for tags)' with the resource type parameter. It distinguishes from siblings like restore_resource and get_references by mentioning them. The verb 'delete' is specific and the resource scope is explicit.

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 explicit conditions for use: requires confirm:true, same write gating as create_resource, and names alternatives (restore_resource for content records, get_references for viewing dependents). It also clarifies when force=true is appropriate and what it does. This is thorough routing guidance.

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