Api metrology metric definitions destroy

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of cascading effects, referential requirements (e.g. whether metric instances/samples block deletion), or what happens on a missing id. It does not contradict the 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?

It is short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness — there is no front-loaded statement of action or effect, only a machine identifier echoed as prose.

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 id parameter, the description should state what is removed, what depends on it, and whether the operation is recoverable. None of that is present.

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 parameter 'id' is undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not say whether the id is the metric definition UUID, a slug, or a numeric key, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 simply the tool name with underscores expanded ('api_metrology_metric_definitions_destroy'), which restates the title rather than stating what the tool does. An agent can infer deletion of a metric definition from the suffix, but no sentence explains the operation or its scope.

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 whatsoever on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer (e.g. delete a metric definition vs. a metric instance vs. a dashboard widget). Every sibling destroy tool has the identical name-only pattern, so nothing routes the agent correctly.

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