Api findings destroy

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally and the description neither contradicts nor duplicates it. However, the description adds zero behavioral context of its own — nothing about permanence, cascading effects on linked assessments, or permission requirements — so it contributes nothing beyond annotations.

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 string is technically short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — it provides no front-loaded statement of action or scope, so the brevity is a defect, not an efficiency.

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, single-parameter deletion tool with no output schema demands a description stating what record type is deleted, what happens to dependents, and what identifier to supply. The description provides none of this, leaving the definition materially incomplete for a dangerous operation.

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?

The single parameter `id` has 0% schema description coverage and the description says nothing about it. An agent is left to guess whether this is the finding's UUID, its ref_id, or something else, and whether any format constraints apply.

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 bare string "api_findings_destroy", which merely restates the tool name and title. An agent can infer deletion of a 'finding' from the name, but the description itself adds no resource scoping, no clarification of what a finding is, and no distinction from the numerous other `*_destroy` siblings.

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 whatsoever on when to use this tool, when not to, or which alternative (e.g. `ciso_assistant_api_findings_update`, `ciso_assistant_api_findings_assessments_destroy`) applies. In a catalog with hundreds of sibling tools this leaves selection entirely to name-guessing.

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