Api findings assessments destroy

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds nothing beyond that: no statement of what gets deleted, whether dependent records cascade, or whether the operation is recoverable. No contradiction, but zero added context.

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 token that is a restatement of the identifier is not conciseness but under-specification; nothing is front-loaded because nothing informative is present.

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 tool with no output schema and an undocumented parameter, the description should carry the full burden. It provides no information at all, leaving an agent unable to call it safely or correctly beyond 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single required parameter 'id' is undocumented. The description does not clarify that 'id' is the identifier of the finding assessment to delete, nor its format (UUID vs. ref_id), leaving the agent to infer this from the tool name alone.

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 literally the tool name repeated ('api_findings_assessments_destroy') and adds no verb or resource phrasing an agent couldn't already parse from the identifier. Only the substring 'destroy' hints at deletion, and it does not distinguish this from the dozens of sibling '*_destroy' 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, no prerequisites, no warning about irreversible deletion, and no mention of alternatives such as partial_update or the list/retrieve siblings for inspecting a finding assessment first.

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