Api ebios rm operating modes destroy

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to linked fear events, attack paths or graphs, or what happens if the id does not exist.

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?

It is short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness — the single string is a raw API path with no front-loaded intent, scope, or effect.

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?

A destructive, irreversible mutation with no output schema, no parameter documentation, and no description of side effects or permissions. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely is present.

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% for the single required 'id' parameter, and the description never mentions it. The agent gets no indication of whether 'id' is a UUID, a numeric ref_id, or a slug, so the description entirely fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 is the tool name repeated verbatim ('api_ebios_rm_operating_modes_destroy'), so it conveys only what the identifier already encodes: destroy an EBIOS RM operating mode. It does not say what an operating mode is in this domain or distinguish the intent from siblings like operating_modes_update or operating_modes_partial_update.

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?

There is no guidance on when to delete versus archive/update, no prerequisites, and no warning that deletion is permanent. The only usable signal comes from the sibling naming convention, not from the description.

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