Api journey steps destroy

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of what is deleted, whether cascading child records are removed, or whether the ID must exist. It does not contradict annotations, but contributes zero behavioral 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?

It is minimal in length, but that brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. The single token is not front-loaded with any useful information because there is none.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and an undocumented parameter, the description should explain effects, prerequisites, and reversibility. None of that is present, leaving the agent with only the annotations and the name to act on.

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 required parameter 'id' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description provides no clarification of what the ID refers to (journey step vs. journey) or its format. With one undocumented parameter, the description is the only place this could be explained, and it is silent.

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 literal tool name repeated ('api_journey_steps_destroy'), which is a tautology rather than an explanation. The name implies deletion of a journey step, but the description adds no verb-resource statement, no scope, and no differentiation from sibling destroy/update 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 versus alternatives such as ciso_assistant_api_journey_steps_partial_update or api_journeys_destroy. No prerequisites, no warnings about irreversibility, no context at all.

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