Api metrology dashboards 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 safety is covered structurally. The description adds zero context on what gets destroyed, whether child widgets/dashboard_widgets are cascaded, or whether the operation is recoverable — a missed opportunity for a destructive endpoint.

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 short, but that brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy: a bare identifier string conveys no actionable information and is not front-loaded with any purpose statement.

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 with no output schema and an undocumented required id, the description is entirely absent as a source of guidance; an agent has nothing beyond annotations and the raw operation 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?

There is one required parameter ('id') with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it — no indication that it is the dashboard's identifier or its format. Below the 0-param baseline because the single undocumented parameter must be understood from the name alone.

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 raw operation id repeated verbatim ('api_metrology_dashboards_destroy'), which only indirectly implies deleting a metrology dashboard. It never states the verb+resource in prose and gives no differentiation from the many sibling destroy endpoints.

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 versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of what state the target must be in before deletion.

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