delete_rate_limit

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable context beyond that: removal is immediate and impacts active throttling, so dependent callers should be checked. This meaningfully augments the structured metadata without contradicting it.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds only high-value safety context. Every word earns its place.

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 tool has a single fully documented parameter, an output schema, and destructive annotations. The description adds the missing behavioral warning about immediate policy removal and dependent callers, making it complete for safe invocation.

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%, with the id parameter already documented as 'Rate-limit policy UUID to delete.' The description only restates 'by id' and does not add new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a rate-limit policy by id.' This clearly separates it from sibling delete tools like delete_usage_limit, and the additional context about removing the active throttling policy reinforces what the operation does.

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 gives clear practical guidance: before deleting, inspect dependent callers and the full policy. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_rate_limit or update_rate_limit, but the warning about immediate removal provides sufficient decision context for when this destructive action is appropriate.

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