scf_delete_custom_risk

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full burden. It discloses the destructive nature ('destructive write'), irreversibility, required role, and the cascading deletion of assessment records and control mappings. This provides sufficient behavioral context for an agent to understand the tool's impact.

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 description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys all essential information. It is front-loaded with the primary action and quickly details what is deleted, the role requirement, and the irreversible nature—no unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers what is deleted, the role needed, and irreversibility. However, it could mention that the operation cannot be undone or list any prerequisites (e.g., risk must exist).

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions already present for both parameters. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'custom risk definition', and it specifies the scope: 'its assessment record, and every control mapping'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scf_create_custom_risk or scf_update_custom_risk.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool—when you need to permanently remove a custom risk and its associated data. It also mentions the required role ('editor+'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools for non-destructive actions.

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