Destroy Action

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and idempotent, and the description adds context about the recycle bin, repeat-call 404, and error statuses. However, the internal contradiction between soft-delete (recoverable) and permanent removal is misleading and undermines behavior transparency. The description also omits mention of the optional incident_id parameter, which is part of the schema.

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 repetitive and contradictory. It states 'resolve it with the matching list tool first' twice, and repeats soft-delete then permanent-removal statements. The structure is not front-loaded effectively, as the key safety information is muddled by the conflicting statements.

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 destructive operation, the description should clearly communicate whether the resource is recoverable. It mentions Recycled Actions endpoints and error codes, but the soft/permanent contradiction leaves a critical gap. With no output schema, return behavior is not defined, and the omission of incident_id means the parameter space is incompletely described.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining project_id defaults and id resolution, but it contradicts the schema by implying project_id may be omitted even though it is required. It also fails to describe the incident_id parameter, which appears in the schema, leading to incomplete parameter understanding.

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 clear action ('Soft-deletes the specified incident action by moving it to the Recycle Bin') but quickly contradicts itself by stating 'Permanently removes the action. This cannot be undone.' This leaves the agent uncertain whether the deletion is recoverable. The verb+resource is present but the conflicting semantics make the tool's purpose ambiguous.

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 useful guidance: confirm the target id with a show/list tool, resolve the parent record first, and understand that project_id can default from configuration. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other recycle/delete endpoints) and the soft/permanent contradiction weakens the practical guidance.

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