Delete Assertion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses that deletion is permanent and not a soft-delete, that the assertion's contribution to sufficiency/verification is dropped, that it does NOT itself re-run verification, and that a background re-evaluation is queued and later surfaced via get_sufficiency. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Front-loaded with the destructive nature and scope, then the background-re-evaluation caveat, then routing/alternatives. Every sentence earns its place and no filler is present.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, yet the description still routes the agent to get_sufficiency for the queued re-evaluation result. For a destructive, ownership-constrained mutation tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 80%, so control_id/assumption_id/model_id are already documented in the schema, and the description's 'from a control or assumption' largely restates that. It adds the ownership constraint (own vs inherited) which is behavioral rather than parameter-syntactic, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Permanently delete') and a precisely scoped resource ('a single assertion from a control or assumption'), and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling write tool submit_assertions and the read tool list_assertions. An agent can tell exactly what this does and what it is not.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use triggers ('retract a claim that was submitted in error or that get_verification_report flagged as misaligned'), names alternatives with their conditions (submit_assertions to add, list_assertions to inspect first), and adds a hard exclusion: only 'own' assertions can be removed, inherited ones must be managed at the source model.

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