delete_datasource

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the deletion action but does not mention whether deletion is irreversible, whether it only removes configuration or also underlying data, whether it cascades to dependent models, or what happens if the datasource name does not exist. For a destructive tool, this is a meaningful gap.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section is brief but repeats what the schema already structurally conveys. It earns its place by adding parameter context, though it could be slightly tighter.

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 one-parameter tool this is close to minimally viable, but the destructive nature of the operation requires more context. The description does not explain the scope of deletion, reversibility, side effects, or error behavior. Without annotations, an agent cannot fully assess the consequences of invoking this 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 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare 'name' property in the schema. The Args section clarifies that the name is the datasource name to delete, which provides actionable meaning beyond the schema's generic 'Title: Name'. It fully covers the single required parameter.

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 and resource: 'Delete a datasource configuration.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_datasource, edit_datasource, and delete_model. The agent knows exactly what action this tool performs.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as edit_datasource or delete_model. There are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or warnings about when deletion is appropriate. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and one-line description.

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