Api solutions destroy

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description frames the tool as 'viewed or edited', implying a safe read/update rather than an irreversible delete. It also omits what gets deleted, whether deletion cascades to linked objects, and required permissions.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no padding, so it is structurally efficient — but efficiency is wasted because the single sentence conveys 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 mutation with no output schema and an undocumented parameter, the description should state irreversibility, cascade effects, and prerequisites. It instead leaves the agent with the impression this is a view/edit endpoint.

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 single required 'id' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds nothing about its expected format (UUID string?) or how to obtain it. The description must compensate here and does not.

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 tool name and annotations say DELETE/destroy of a solution, but the description says it 'allows solutions to be viewed or edited', which describes a retrieve/update endpoint rather than a deletion. The verb+resource is present but claims the wrong operation, so an agent could misidentify what the tool does.

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 indication of when to call this versus ciso_assistant_api_solutions_update, _partial_update, _retrieve, or _list. Sibling tools cover those operations explicitly, so the absence of any routing signal here is a real gap.

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