delete_access_policy

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for going beyond them: it explains the downstream effect (allow/deny rule removal changing access permissions), qualifies irreversibility ("cannot be undone by this tool"), and gives the failure mode (HTTP 404 when missing).

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?

Three tight sentences: action and effect first, irreversibility second, prerequisite and return behavior last. No padding, though the irreversibility hedge and the prerequisite sentence could be tightened into one clause.

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 single-parameter destructive delete with an output schema available, the description covers everything needed: what it destroys, that the caller should inspect first, and the not-found condition. No required information is missing.

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% and the single `id` parameter is fully documented there, including the UUID pattern and source tools. The description only restates "by UUID", adding nothing beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Delete an access policy by UUID") plus the consequence (removing its allow or deny rule and changing access permissions). This clearly distinguishes it from adjacent deleters like delete_egress_allowlist_entry, delete_integration, and delete_guardrail without needing the schema.

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 names a concrete prerequisite/sibling ("Inspect get_access_policy first"), which gives the agent a real workflow anchor for a destructive op. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with update_access_policy or delete_egress_allowlist_entry, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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