Invoke Destructive SAP Capability

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety behavior is covered structurally. The description adds that the original tool validation and result are preserved, which is useful behavioral context. It still does not describe what gets destroyed, auth needs, or rate limits, so with annotations present this is a 3.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and prerequisite. It is efficient and free of filler. The only weakness is that its brevity contributes to the parameter documentation gap.

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?

The safety profile is covered by annotations, and the description adds the describe-first prerequisite and result preservation. But for a destructive invocation wrapper with required schemaHash and arguments, the lack of any parameter explanation leaves an agent under-informed about how to call it 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 description mentions no parameter semantics at all. With three parameters, required name and schemaHash, an arguments object, and 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate and does not explain any 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Invoke a destructive capability.' It also names the prerequisite sibling sap.capability.describe and distinguishes itself from invoke_read/invoke_write through the word 'destructive.' It falls short of a 5 because it does not explicitly state when this differs from invoke_write beyond the destructive label.

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?

It gives a clear prerequisite: invoke after sap.capability.describe. That is actionable context for selecting the tool. However, it does not explicitly compare this to invoke_write or state when-not to use it, so it stops short of the top score.

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