akb_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the destructive side effects (removing from Git, search index, knowledge graph), which is useful. However, it omits any mention of permissions, reversibility, confirmation requirements, or what happens to dependent data, which are important for a mutation 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 concise sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by the key side-effect information. Every word adds value, making it an exemplary model of brevity without under-specification.

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 delete tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and cascading effects. It might benefit from mentioning whether the delete is reversible or if there are any prerequisites (e.g., ownership), but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to make the call.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (uri and _vault_skill_ack). The description adds no extra meaning about the parameters, such as URI format or how the ack token is used. A baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'document', and adds the scope of removal (Git, search index, knowledge graph) which differentiates from similar tools like akb_delete_vault or akb_delete_collection. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or edge cases, so it stops 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that akb_delete_file handles files, akb_delete_vault handles vaults, or when a document delete is appropriate. The agent is left to infer that any 'document' deletion goes here, without reasoning about alternatives.

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