remove_attacker

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the behavioral profile: soft-delete, preservation of ID, tombstoning of control objectives, orphaning of controls (derived at read time), and reversibility. It clearly states 'Nothing is permanently destroyed' and that removal creates a new model version, providing rich behavioral context beyond a simple delete.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence summary, followed by essential behavioral details and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is logical despite being longer than average. No filler 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?

For a mutating soft-delete operation with no annotations, the description covers purpose, behavior, side effects, reversibility, usage context, and alternatives. It even notes that controls become orphaned rather than hard-deleted. An output schema exists, so return values are not required in the description. The tool is fully contextualized.

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 67%, with model_id and attacker_id described in the schema but server_version left undocumented. The description adds minimal parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides, though the mention of 'attacker's ID' reinforces attacker_id. It does not explain server_version, leaving a gap.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Soft-delete an attacker from a threat model.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly contrasting with edit_attacker and restore_attacker, making the tool's unique role obvious.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use to drop an attacker that no longer applies.' It names alternatives with conditions: 'To change an attacker's fields instead, use edit_attacker; to bring a removed one back, use restore_attacker.' This is exemplary usage direction.

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