Api perimeters destroy

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description frames the operation as viewing or editing. This directly contradicts the destructive nature of the tool and gives no warning about deletion, permissions, or irreversibility.

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?

The description is a single short sentence, so it is concise, but that sentence is misleading rather than informative. It does not earn its place because it describes the wrong operation for a destructive endpoint.

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 tool with a required identifier, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description should clarify deletion semantics and prerequisites. Instead it omits the core behavior and contradicts the annotations, leaving an agent unable to call it safely.

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 schema has one required 'id' parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description provides no information about what the id identifies or how it is used. The description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation at all.

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 says the endpoint allows perimeters to be 'viewed or edited,' which is misleading for a tool named and annotated as destroy. It identifies the resource but states the wrong operation, so an agent cannot infer that this deletes a perimeter.

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 use it, or which sibling should be used instead. Worse, the description implies viewing/editing, which could steer an agent toward a destructive operation under the false impression that it is harmless.

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