scm_delete_vulnerability_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a profile, implying a destructive mutation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether deletion is reversible, error handling, or confirmation prompts. This is a significant gap for a deletion tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: one for the purpose and one for parameters. It's front-loaded with the main action, and the parameter explanations are concise, though the 'Args:' section could be integrated more smoothly.

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 tool's complexity (destructive deletion), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It misses critical context like behavioral traits, return values, error conditions, and security implications, making it inadequate for safe agent use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: 'profile_id' as the UUID to delete and 'tsg_id' as optional with a default. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., UUID structure) or what 'SCM_TSG_ID' refers to.

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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'vulnerability protection profile by UUID', making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'scm_get_vulnerability_profile' or 'scm_create_vulnerability_profile' by the action, though it doesn't explicitly mention these alternatives in the description itself.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing profile), exclusions, or compare it to other deletion tools in the sibling list, leaving usage context implied at best.

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