scf_delete_vendor_certification

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the 'destructive write' label is redundant. However, the description adds an 'editor role' permission requirement, which is not in the annotations, and it explains the softer alternative of status-based retirement. This adds meaningful context beyond the structured metadata.

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 entire description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then packs in the role and the history-preservation guidance. Every clause earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 delete tool with three fully documented UUID parameters, no output schema, and safety cues in annotations, the description covers the core usage: what it deletes, who can do it, and when to avoid it. It could mention cascading effects or audit-log implications, but for the stated scope this is sufficient.

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 each UUID parameter documented as obtainable from a specific list tool (e.g., 'obtain from scf_list_organizations'). The description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description opens with 'Delete a vendor certification record,' a specific verb and resource that unambiguously identifies the operation. It further clarifies this is a destructive write, and the sibling set includes create/update/list vendor certifications, so the tool is easily distinguished without opening the schema.

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 gives a clear when-not-to-use condition: 'Prefer status=expired or revoked when the history matters.' This tells the agent to avoid hard deletion when record history is important. It stops short of naming the alternative tool (scf_update_vendor_certification), but the guidance is explicit enough to route behavior.

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