scf_delete_risk_assessment

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

Even though annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, the description adds valuable context: the required role, the destructive nature, and the precise scope of deletion. It explains that the catalog or custom risk definition is preserved, giving an agent a clear picture of side effects.

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 sentences with no filler. The destructive warning and role requirement are front-loaded, followed by a precise clarification of what remains versus what is removed.

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 simple two-parameter destructive action with annotations covering the safety profile and schema covering parameters, the description is fully adequate. It includes the role requirement, the destructive nature, and the exact scope of the deletion.

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 org_id and risk_code already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces that the deletion is organization-scoped, but it does not need to add more because the schema already carries the parameter meaning.

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 and resource: it deletes an organization's scoring of a risk code. It also clearly distinguishes this from deleting the risk definition itself, which differentiates it from sibling tools like scf_delete_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 provides clear context: this is a destructive write requiring an editor role, and it explicitly clarifies that the risk definition remains while only the org's assessment row is removed. It does not name an alternative tool explicitly, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to avoid using it for definition deletion.

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