Delete problem

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond that: MissingParameterError is raised when problem_id is absent, which is useful because the schema marks nothing as required. The ':return: Response containing information about the deletion' line adds little.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first line, which is good. The remaining Sphinx directives are boilerplate whose :type:/:rtype: lines largely restate the schema, and the :return: line is near-vacuous, so a fair amount of the text does not earn its place.

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, 15-parameter, zero-required-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotation-adjacent documentation, the description is thin. It never explains what the sysparm_* family does, whether deletion is cascading or reversible, or what the deletion response contains, leaving the agent under-informed before an irreversible operation.

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% across 15 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and it does not: only problem_id is explained, and the other 14 (sysparm_query, sysparm_fields, sysparm_limit, name_value_pairs, api_parameters, etc.) are left undocumented in both places. The one param it does document is typed 'str' in the docstring while the schema accepts integer or string, a minor inconsistency.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a problem record'), which cleanly separates it from get_problem, update_problem, create_problem and from delete_incident/delete_change_request by resource. It does not, however, mention any sibling or scope constraint explicitly, so differentiation is by name inference rather than by the description.

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, when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative tools are given. The only usage signal is the ':raises MissingParameterError: If problem_id is not provided' note, which is an error condition rather than routing guidance. An agent gets no help deciding between this and servicenow_delete_table_record or servicenow_delete_incident.

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