delete_control

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool performs a soft-delete (not permanent destruction) and requires a reason. It also warns about a potential 409 conflict. However, it does not mention whether the soft-delete is reversible, what happens to associated entities, or any permission requirements. Given no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and does a good job but could be slightly more comprehensive.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the action, and the second delivers a critical constraint. Every word earns its place, and the critical warning is front-loaded. No fluff or redundancy.

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 that an output schema exists (as indicated by context signals), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the key input aspects and the blocking condition. However, it could mention whether the soft-delete is reversible or if there are side effects on other data. Still, for a delete tool, this is mostly complete.

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?

The schema already describes 3 out of 4 parameters (75% coverage). The description only implicitly references the 'reason' parameter via 'justification' but adds no new parameter-level details beyond the schema. The missing server_version parameter description is not compensated by the tool description. Thus the description provides minimal added value over the schema.

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 tool performs a soft-delete on a security control with justification. The verb 'delete' and resource 'security control' are explicit, and the qualifier 'soft-' distinguishes it from a permanent deletion. Among siblings, many delete tools exist (e.g., delete_assertion, delete_tag), but this one is specific to controls, avoiding ambiguity.

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 explicit guidance on when NOT to use the tool: it blocks with 409 if the control is the only one covering a control objective. It also advises the user to 'add a replacement control or refine the threat model first', giving clear direction on alternatives. This proactive guidance helps the agent avoid errors.

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