Api incidents destroy

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description frames the operation as CSV/XLSX exporting, implying a harmless read. No mention of irreversibility, cascade effects on related objects, or required permissions — a destructive tool with a description that actively obscures that fact.

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 sentence is short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness: the one line present is wrong and conveys no actionable information about the operation.

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 endpoint with no output schema, the description should at minimum state that an incident is permanently deleted by id and what that affects. Instead it says nothing relevant, leaving the agent wholly dependent on the name and annotations.

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 required parameter (id) is self-describing only by name and type. The description adds nothing — it does not say the id identifies an incident to be deleted, and its export framing is irrelevant to the parameter.

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 ("Generic export mixin for CSV/XLSX exports") describes an export helper, not a deletion of an incident. It is misleading relative to the tool name and gives an agent no way to understand that this permanently removes an incident record.

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, and no mention of alternatives such as update, partial_update or batch_action. Worse, the export framing points the agent toward the wrong intent entirely.

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