Api questions destroy

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not state permanence of deletion, whether related question_choices are cascaded/removed, or what happens when the id is missing or already deleted. 'CRUD' actively obscures the destructive nature the annotations flag.

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?

A single seven-word sentence is short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness. Nothing is front-loaded about the destructive action, and the one sentence conveys no actionable information.

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 an irreversible delete on a nested resource with no output schema, the description should mention cascade effects on dependent objects and confirm the id type. Neither is present; only the annotations rescue the agent from deleting blind.

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?

One required parameter (id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it. It does not clarify that id is the Question's UUID rather than a reference, a QA question, or a chat questionnaire question — a real ambiguity given sibling resources like chat_questionnaire_questions.

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 reads 'API endpoint for Question CRUD,' which merely restates the resource name without naming the operation. The actual verb (destroy/delete) is only recoverable from the tool name and title, not from the description text. An agent cannot distinguish this from ciso_assistant_api_questions_retrieve, _update, or _partial_update by reading the description alone.

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 about when to invoke this tool versus the many sibling question tools (create, list, retrieve, update, batch_action). No preconditions, no warning to prefer soft-delete or update instead, no mention of required confirmation or permissions.

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