Api evidence revisions destroy

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

Annotations carry the full safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the agent can infer it is a destructive write from structured data alone. The description adds nothing and arguably misleads by framing the endpoint as view/edit rather than permanent deletion, without stating whether deletion cascades or is recoverable.

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?

One short sentence, no padding, and the resource name is front-loaded — but it is short because it is boilerplate, not because it is dense with meaning.

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, idempotent delete with no output schema, the agent needs to know what is removed and what remains (revisions of an evidence, attachments). None of that is present, so the definition is incomplete for the operation's risk level.

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% and the single `id` property has no description; the description does not say whether it is the evidence revision's own identifier or a parent evidence id. The parameter is nearly self-evident from the name, but nothing in the text compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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 restates a generic DRF docstring ("allows evidence revisions to be viewed or edited") without naming the actual operation. Every sibling on the same resource — retrieve, list, update, partial_update, create — has the identical sentence, so an agent cannot tell that this one deletes.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as partial_update or retrieve, and the one implied usage ("viewed or edited") points the agent away from what the tool actually does.

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