correlations_delete

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

The description discloses a key behavioral requirement: 'You must have **Instance Administrator** permissions to run this endpoint.' It also hints at the bulk nature via the filter example. However, it does not state that deletion is permanent or irreversible, which is important for a destructive tool with no annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action. The example request body is a useful addition that clarifies the request format, though the opening line is repeated ('Delete Correlation Rules' appears as title and first line), causing slight redundancy.

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 description lacks critical context for a delete operation: it does not mention whether the deletion is permanent, what happens to dependent data, or what the API response looks like. With no output schema and minimal description, this is incomplete for a destructive, filter-based tool.

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 0%, meaning the description adds no parameter explanations. The example request body shows the structure but does not explain the valid field values, operators, or nuances covered in the schema. The description fails to compensate for the low coverage, with no elaboration on the parameters.

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 clearly states 'Delete Correlation Rules' and specifies 'selected by filter', directly conveying the tool's purpose. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like correlations_get and correlations_insert, which handle retrieval and creation, respectively.

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 indicates the tool deletes by filter, implying a bulk operation, but it offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives. It only provides a permission prerequisite, not comparative guidance.

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