remove_assumption

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses key behaviors: soft-delete (non-destructive), model version creation, audit trail preservation, impact on linked COs and controls, and reconnection on restore. This provides substantial transparency, though it omits permission requirements or rate limits.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds necessary behavioral detail without redundancy or fluff.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers the tool's effect comprehensively, including side effects on COs and controls. Minor gap: no mention of permission requirements or error conditions.

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 coverage is 67% (server_version missing description). The tool description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already states for model_id and assumption_id. It does not compensate for the undocumented server_version parameter.

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 'Soft-delete an assumption' and mentions 'Creates a new model version', precisely indicating the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like add_assumption, edit_assumption, and restore_assumption.

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 explains the effects (soft-delete, audit trail, impact on linked COs and controls) and implies the alternative restore_assumption for undoing, providing good context for usage decisions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over other assumption operations.

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