Api policies 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 endpoint as one that 'allows applied controls to be viewed or edited' — a read/edit characterization of a delete operation. This is a direct contradiction, and nothing about permanence, dependencies, or required permissions is disclosed.

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 is meaningless when the single sentence carries false information. There is no front-loaded statement of the verb or resource, so an agent gains nothing from reading it.

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?

A destructive, open-world tool with no output schema, an undocumented required id, and annotations that the description flatly contradicts. Everything an agent needs to invoke this safely is absent or wrong.

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 is undocumented in both schema and description. The description never mentions the identifier, its format, or whether it is a slug, UUID, or numeric path segment.

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 names the wrong resource ('applied controls' when the tool operates on policies) and the wrong operation ('viewed or edited' when the tool destroys a record). It actively misleads an agent about what is being acted on and what will happen.

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?

No when-to-use, no prerequisites, no mention of alternatives such as ciso_assistant_api_policies_retrieve or policies_partial_update. The only guidance offered ('viewed or edited') points the agent to the wrong operation entirely.

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