AtlaSent — Delete Policy

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

The description adds value beyond the annotations by stating 'Permanently delete' and 'Prefer archiving', which warns of irreversibility and suggests caution. Annotations already have destructiveHint=true, so the description reinforces this. No behavioral contradictions. Some missing details (e.g., what happens if dependencies exist) but acceptable for the destructiveHint flag.

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 two sentences long with no wasted words. The first sentence immediately states the action, and the second provides a usage preference. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 low complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema) and annotations covering destructive behavior, the description is nearly complete. It could mention auth requirements or the irreversible nature more explicitly, but the 'permanently delete' phrase covers that. Lacks details on success/error responses, but no output schema exists to justify that.

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 100%, with both org_id and policy_id already described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter details. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema itself is sufficient.

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 'Permanently delete a constraint bundle' uses a specific verb+resource, clearly stating the action and object. It distinguishes from sibling deletion tools like atlasent_delete_scim_user and atlasent_delete_webhook by specifying 'constraint bundle'. The additional note 'Prefer archiving over deleting' adds further clarity on the tool's purpose.

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 explicitly recommends archiving over deleting, providing implicit guidance on when not to use this tool. However, it does not directly mention specific alternatives (e.g., atlasent_update_policy) or detailed context for when deletion is appropriate beyond permanence. This is good but could be more explicit.

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