Chainsaw: delete custom rule

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real operational constraint (bundled Chainsaw/Sigma rules are protected) that prevents a predictable failure, though it does not state permanence or the error behavior when the name is invalid.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the action is front-loaded and the constraint follows immediately. Every sentence earns 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 single-parameter destructive delete with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition is essentially complete. The only minor gap is what a successful deletion returns and whether it is permanent, which the agent could reasonably infer from the destructive/idempotent hints.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it as the custom rule file name. The description adds no syntax, format, or matching semantics (e.g., name vs. file path), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (delete) and resource (custom rule), clearly separating it from the other rule-related siblings (get_rule, save_rule, search_rules) and from result deletion. It stops short of any sibling-by-name routing, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

Provides an explicit negative condition: bundled Chainsaw and Sigma rules cannot be deleted, which tells the agent when this tool will fail. There is no positive when-to-use framing beyond the obvious, so it falls short of the 5-level 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' standard.

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