Api risk acceptances destroy

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, yet the description frames the endpoint as a view/edit operation, contradicting the destructive contract. It never mentions irreversibility, cascade effects, or whether related objects are removed, which is the minimum an agent needs before an irreversible delete.

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 a single short sentence, so it is not bloated, but brevity here comes at the cost of saying anything useful. The one clause it does contain describes the wrong operation.

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, open-world, idempotent mutation with no output schema and an undocumented identifier, the description supplies none of the context needed: no deletion semantics, no permission or confirmation requirements, no side effects. What annotations provide is actively undercut rather than supplemented.

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' has no type detail or format (e.g. UUID) anywhere. The description says nothing about what the identifier refers to or how to obtain a valid one, so it fails to compensate for the schema 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 states the resource ('risk acceptance') but gives the wrong operation: 'viewed or edited' rather than deletion, which is what the tool name and the destroy suffix indicate. An agent reading only the description would not know this removes a record.

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 delete versus the many sibling lifecycle actions (risk_acceptances_revoke_create, _reject_create, _accept_create, _draft_create) that also change the state of a risk acceptance. The only implied usage, viewing or editing, is wrong for this endpoint.

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