Destroy Injury

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

The description contains an internal contradiction: 'Sends Injury to the recycle bin' implies recoverability, while 'permanently delete' and 'cannot be undone' imply irreversible destruction. Annotations already indicate destructiveness, but the contradictory phrasing undermines clarity. No side effects or authorization needs are disclosed.

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 three sentences but contains redundancy (e.g., 'This cannot be undone' repeated twice). It front-loads the action but could be more concise. Acceptable but not efficient.

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?

The description does not explain return values (no output schema), the purpose of the optional 'incident_id' parameter, or authorization requirements. The recycle bin vs permanent delete ambiguity leaves the agent without clear expectations of the operation's outcome.

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?

All parameters are already described in the input schema with full coverage. The description restates required parameters but adds no additional context for the optional 'incident_id' parameter. Schema coverage is 100%, so 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 tool deletes an injury resource, but it confuses 'Injuries' with 'Incidents' and does not differentiate from sibling destroy tools. The verb and resource are clear, but the mixed terminology reduces precision.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other destroy or delete tools. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or context for use, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and parameters.

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