scf_delete_engagement

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: admin role requirement, 409 refusal for non-draft engagements, revocation of auditor grants, and deletion of frozen scope. This goes well beyond the annotation surface.

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?

Three dense sentences deliver all essential facts with no filler. Destructive/role information is front-loaded, followed by refusal behavior and side effects.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, failure mode, side effects, and scope of impact. The parameter schema completes the picture, making the tool fully callable by an agent.

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 100%, with both params fully described including how to obtain each UUID. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but none is needed because the schema already carries the burden.

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 a specific verb ('delete'), a specific resource ('draft audit engagement'), and a scope boundary ('and its frozen scope'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from related siblings like scf_update_engagement and scf_create_engagement by restricting it to draft engagements.

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 explicitly says when to use it (draft engagements) and when not to (non-draft engagements), and it directs the agent to close non-draft engagements instead. This gives unambiguous selection guidance.

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