delete_d_asset_suppress_vulnerability_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the operation is a DELETE call, which implies destructiveness, but it does not state whether the operation is reversible, requires special permissions, is idempotent, or what consequences follow deletion of the suppression. For a mutation tool, this is a meaningful transparency gap.

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 compact, with the purpose and endpoint in the first sentence and parameter placement in the second. It avoids filler and is appropriately sized. The typo 'suppres' and the slightly awkward phrasing prevent a perfect score, but it remains efficient and scannable.

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 names the endpoint and general parameter locations, but it leaves out concrete details needed to actually construct the request, such as which specific query parameters are valid for filters, what pagination fields are expected, and any required headers. The output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, but for a tool with fully generic input schema, the description does not provide enough operational detail to ensure correct 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?

The input schema is essentially generic (all object placeholders with 0% schema description coverage), so the description must compensate. It does add useful semantics by mapping path_params to route IDs, query to filters/pagination, and headers to required request headers. However, it gives no concrete query filter names, no format for the ID, and does not mention the body parameter at all, leaving the agent with only coarse guidance.

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 clear action ('Delete suppres vulnerability') and gives the exact endpoint (`DELETE /d/asset/suppress_vulnerability/{id}`), which distinguishes it from sibling GET/POST/PATCH tools on the same resource. The minor typo 'suppres' and lack of explicit 'by ID' phrasing reduce it slightly, but the endpoint and context make 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 tells the agent how to place parameters ('route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query, and any required request headers in headers'), which is useful operational guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when this tool should be selected over alternatives such as post_w_asset_suppress_vulnerability or patch_w_asset_suppress_vulnerability, nor does it mention any preconditions or side effects. Usage is implied by the DELETE verb rather than explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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