delete_policy

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: destructive but recoverable (soft-delete), requires prior version read, and explains 409 error scenarios. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 a compact 3-sentence paragraph, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 delete tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers core behavior, recoverability, prerequisite steps, and common error handling. It could mention return value but is nearly complete.

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%, but the description adds meaningful context beyond schema: 'Read it first for its version' explains expectedVersion, and 'Acknowledges you understand this is destructive' reinforces confirm. It adds value for two of three parameters.

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 'Delete a policy.' and adds that it is destructive but recoverable (soft-delete). It distinguishes from sibling tools like restore_policy and list_deleted_policies, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance on prerequisites (read policy first for version), recovery via restore_policy, and error handling for 409 (stale version vs. reference conflict). It implies when to use this tool (for deletion) but could be more explicit about alternatives within the same entity type, though none exist.

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