delete_control

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full transparency burden. It discloses mutating behavior, soft-delete vs permanent erase, the HTTP 409 blocking condition, and the optional audit-trail justification. It does not mention permissions or response format, but the output schema covers the latter. This is solid disclosure for a destructive operation.

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 punchy sentences: the first states purpose and soft-delete nature; the second explains the blocking condition and gives actionable guidance. No filler, perfectly front-loaded.

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 a mutating tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, behavior, conflict conditions, and a prerequisite, while the output schema documents return values. The sibling context and schema round out the picture, making this highly 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 input schema already describes model_id, control_id, and reason (with default and 'recorded in audit trail'). The description reinforces the reason parameter and clarifies control_id semantics via the 409 behavior. Since schema coverage is 75% and the description adds some contextual value, the 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Soft-delete'), the resource ('a security control'), and the optional justification. It distinguishes from siblings like delete_threat_model and update_control_status by specifying exactly what kind of deletion and the soft-delete semantics.

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?

It provides clear context: when you want to retire a control without permanent erasure. It also gives a strong usage condition (blocks when control is the only coverage for a CO) and advice to add a replacement control before deleting, which implicitly tells the agent when to reconsider. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives like update_control_status, so not a 5.

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