Api evidences destroy

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, but the description frames the endpoint as a view/edit endpoint, contradicting the destructive read/write profile. It also omits that deletion is irreversible, whether attachments or evidence revisions cascade, and whether permissions are required.

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?

A single boilerplate sentence with no bloat, but it is content-free generated scaffold text rather than front-loaded, useful information. Brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness.

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, id-parameterized endpoint with no output schema, the description should at minimum state deletion, permanence, and side effects. Annotations supply only the safety flags, and the description contradicts them, leaving an agent without enough to call this safely.

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, so the description must carry the burden — but it says nothing about whether `id` is the numeric primary key, reference id, or UUID, nor what happens if the id does not exist. The parameter name alone is nearly self-evident, which keeps this above 1.

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 never states what the tool actually does: it says the endpoint "allows evidences to be viewed or edited," while the name and annotations make clear this is a delete operation. It identifies the resource (evidences) but actively misdescribes the verb, so an agent reading only the description would think this is a read or update tool.

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 guidance, no mention of permanence or preconditions, and no routing to siblings such as ciso_assistant_api_evidences_retrieve, evidences_partial_update, or evidences_list. The one condition that matters for a destroy tool — when deletion is appropriate and what to check first — is entirely absent.

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