bsp_destroy_beo

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

No annotations are present, so the full behavioral burden falls on the description. It carries that burden excellently: it labels the operation IRREVERSIBLE, spells out three concrete consequences, and warns that user confirmation is required before executing.

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: the irreversible warning comes first, followed by the action, its side effects, and the mandatory confirmation. Every sentence carries weight and none is redundant.

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 destructive two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the essential facts: what it destroys, what it affects, its legal grounding, and the user-confirmation guardrail. It does not describe return or error behavior, but that is secondary for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage: beoId as the BEO UUID and confirm as a boolean that must be true. The description adds little beyond reiterating the confirmation requirement, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'IRREVERSIBLE — Permanently destroy a BEO' and lists concrete downstream effects (nullifies public key, revokes all ConsentTokens, releases domain). This is a specific verb+resource definition and clearly distinguishes the tool from reversible sibling operations like bsp_lock_beo, bsp_unlock_beo, or bsp_revoke_all_tokens.

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 clearly implies use only for definitive erasure under LGDP/GDPR and mandates user confirmation. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or which alternative sibling tool fits non-destructive cases, such as bsp_lock_beo or bsp_revoke_all_tokens.

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