indicators_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the required permission and the endpoint, which is helpful. However, it does not state that deletion is irreversible, what the response looks like, or how filtering behaves (e.g., AND/OR logic). This is a mutation tool with no safety annotations, so more transparency would be expected.

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 relatively concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, then permission, endpoint, and example. The example block is useful for a nested filter parameter, but there is minor redundancy between the title and the first sentence. Overall, it 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?

For a destructive tool with a nested filter schema and no output schema, the description does not adequately explain response behavior, reversibility, or the semantics of multiple filters. The provided example is inconsistent with the declared schema, leaving important gaps for an agent to invoke this 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides an example request body showing structure, but the example uses 'field: rule_id' which is not in the schema's enum, and 'extended_view' is not defined in the schema at all. This is misleading rather than helpful, so the description fails to add meaningful parameter semantics.

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 'Delete Indicators (IOCs)' and restates 'Delete IOCs selected by filter', using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like indicators_get or indicators_insert by focusing on deletion via filters.

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 implies usage when you need to delete IOCs matching a filter and states required permissions ('Instance Administrator'), but it does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives or mention when not to use it. The purpose itself provides the context, so it is acceptable but not strongly guided.

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