delete_scim_workspace_mapping

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description adds critical behavior: existing provisioned members remain, Enterprise-gating, and 403 error on non-Enterprise plans. This gives the agent important context to set expectations and handle errors.

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 tightly written in three sentences, each providing unique, necessary information. It is front-loaded with the primary action, followed by consequential details, with no wasted words.

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?

Given the single parameter, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers all relevant context: purpose, side effects, prerequisites, exclusions, gating, and error behavior. It is fully self-sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by specifying that mapping_id comes from list_scim_workspace_mappings. This reinforces the parameter's origin, though it could include more details about required format or validation.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('SCIM group-to-workspace mapping'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_scim_workspace_mapping and list_scim_workspace_mappings. It also states the key side effect (stopping future group updates), 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 explicitly instructs to 'Inspect list_scim_workspace_mappings first', providing a clear prerequisite and source for the mapping_id. It also clarifies exclusions (does not delete the identity-provider group or the Portkey workspace), helping the agent avoid misuse.

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