delete_scim_workspace_mapping

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description still adds substantive behavior: provisioned members persist and must be managed separately, the IdP group and workspace survive, and non-Enterprise plans get a 403. That is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information, with the core action and its consequence front-loaded ahead of caveats and gating. No filler.

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 tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs is missing: side effects, non-effects, prerequisite listing, and Enterprise gating are all stated.

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 parameter is documented as coming from list_scim_workspace_mappings, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes 'by mapping_id' without adding format or sourcing detail beyond what is already structured; 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a SCIM group-to-workspace mapping by mapping_id') and immediately names the operational consequence ('stop future group updates from affecting that workspace'), which makes it distinguishable from siblings like create_scim_workspace_mapping and list_scim_workspace_mappings.

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 explicitly routes the agent to the alternative ('Inspect list_scim_workspace_mappings first') and draws hard boundaries around what this tool does not do ('does not delete the identity-provider group or the Portkey workspace'). That is when-to-use plus exclusions, not inference.

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