Api journeys 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 covered by structured data — but the description adds nothing at all, not even what a journey is or what cascades when one is deleted (note the sibling cascade_info_retrieve tool). Zero value added 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?

Extremely short, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency — it is the tool name copied verbatim with no front-loaded statement of purpose. There is nothing to trim and nothing to use.

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, non-read-only mutation with no output schema and an undescribed required parameter, the definition provides no information an agent needs to call it safely. It is entirely inadequate given the tool's risk profile.

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?

One required parameter 'id' exists with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not say what the id identifies (a journey UUID? a numeric pk?) or what format it takes. With no compensation for a completely undocumented parameter, this fails the schema-coverage rule.

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 'api_journeys_destroy' — a tautology that restates the identifier without stating a verb, resource, or outcome in human terms. It does not distinguish this from siblings such as ciso_assistant_api_journeys_batch_action_create or ciso_assistant_api_journey_steps_destroy beyond the already-visible name.

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, when not to, or which alternative to pick (e.g. batch_action_create for bulk deletion, or partial_update for modification). An agent must infer everything from the name suffix 'destroy'.

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