Api metrology custom metric samples destroy

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is not the description's burden and there is no contradiction. However the description adds zero behavioral context: no statement of what gets destroyed, whether deletion cascades to related samples or dashboards, or whether it is recoverable.

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, identical to the name, with no front-loaded explanation of anything. This is under-specification rather than conciseness — there is no sentence structure to evaluate and nothing that earns its place beyond the identifier already shown to the agent.

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, one-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotation explanation of consequences, the description provides nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely. It omits scope, effect, reversibility, and prerequisites entirely.

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 'id' parameter carries no description of its own. The description does not say what the id identifies (a custom metric sample vs. a metric definition) or what form it takes, so the one parameter an agent must supply is entirely undocumented.

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 tool name verbatim: 'api_metrology_custom_metric_samples_destroy'. It restates the identifier rather than explaining what the tool does, so it is a tautology by the rubric's definition. The 'destroy' token lets an agent infer deletion of a custom metric sample, but nothing in the text confirms or elaborates that.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance whatsoever. With ~20 sibling metrology tools (list, retrieve, create, update, partial_update, batch_action, cascade_info) the description offers no signal for choosing destroy over, say, partial_update or the batch_action variant.

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