delete_d_company_attack_surface_domain_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It states the action is 'Delete,' implying destructive nature, but does not mention irreversibility, required permissions, side effects, or what happens to related data. It also doesn't clarify whether the operation is safe or what the response indicates. This is a significant gap for a delete tool.

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 a single sentence that packs the endpoint and parameter guidance without extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the action and then provides practical placement info. No fluff, though the structure could be slightly clearer by separating the HTTP call from the parameter guidance.

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 delete operation with no annotations and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not state that the ID in path_params is required (schema marks path_params optional), nor does it mention prerequisites, side effects, or typical error scenarios. The presence of an output schema helps but does not compensate for missing critical usage details. An agent might not know what to put in the body or how to construct the path properly.

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 schema provides zero descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does clarify that route IDs go in path_params, filters/pagination go in query, and headers go in headers, which adds value over the empty schema. However, it does not name specific parameters, describe formats, or explain what 'filters and pagination' mean. It also omits any mention of the body parameter, leaving its usage ambiguous.

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 the verb ('Delete') and resource ('attack surface domain') and references the specific endpoint. It distinguishes from siblings by being the delete operation, though the name already conveys this. It is specific but doesn't elaborate beyond the obvious.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the related GET/PATCH tools (e.g., get_r_company_attack_surface_domain_id, patch_w_company_attack_surface_domain). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions under which deletion is appropriate. The only usage hint is parameter placement, which is not about selecting the tool.

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