Api ebios rm operational scenarios 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 covered. The description adds nothing about cascade effects (do linked attack paths / operating modes get deleted?), whether the record is soft-deleted, or what happens on an unknown id. With annotations doing the safety work, this is only marginally deficient, but it contributes zero beyond them.

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 text is a single identifier with no front-loaded statement, so there is no waste but also no information. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient structure.

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, open-world mutation with no output schema and an undocumented id parameter, an agent needs at minimum what object is removed and what related EBIOS RM objects are affected. None of that is present, so the definition is not complete enough to call safely without guessing.

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?

There is one required parameter 'id' with 0% schema description coverage. The description never says whether this is the operational scenario's UUID, slug, or ref_id, nor what a malformed/unknown id yields, so it 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 verbatim ('api_ebios_rm_operational_scenarios_destroy'), which only indirectly implies deleting an EBIOS RM operational scenario. It adds no verb-plus-resource statement an agent could use to distinguish this from the many sibling *_destroy tools (strategic_scenarios_destroy, operating_modes_destroy, feared_events_destroy, etc.).

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. The agent must infer from the name alone that this deletes a single operational scenario rather than, say, a strategic scenario or operating mode from the same EBIOS RM study.

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