hebbrix_delete_procedure

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains that the API returns the same 204 for deleted, absent, and foreign-tenant ids and that this prevents disclosure of another tenant's procedure identity. This adds meaningful behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the core operation is front-loaded. Every clause adds value, especially the security-relevant 204 note.

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 one-parameter destructive tool, the description, annotations, and output schema cover what an agent needs: the delete semantics, idempotency, tenant scoping, response-code uniformity, and privacy guarantee. No material gap remains.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. While it does not explicitly restate that procedure_id identifies the procedure, the second sentence clarifies important semantics: foreign or absent ids are treated identically, and the idempotent delete behavior directly affects how the result of any procedure_id should be interpreted.

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 opening phrase 'Idempotently delete a tenant-owned procedure and its executions' names a specific verb, resource, and scope, making it unmistakable and distinct from sibling create/update/get/list/execute procedure tools.

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 clearly establishes the tool's use case: removing a tenant-owned procedure and its executions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the delete semantics are unambiguous and sufficient to route an agent to this tool over siblings.

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