Destroy Witness Statement

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

The description says 'Sends to Recycle Bin' and also 'permanently delete' and 'cannot be undone', creating an internal contradiction about whether the action is reversible. Annotations confirm destructive intent, but the description's conflicting language undermines transparency.

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?

Multiple sentences repeat the same information (e.g., 'cannot be undone' said twice, 'permanently delete the specified Incidents' repeated). The inclusion of API endpoint details is extraneous. Could be condensed to 2-3 sentences.

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 tool with no output schema, the description should clarify the permanence (soft vs hard delete) and return behavior. The internal contradiction and lack of detail on consequences make it incomplete.

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 only repeats required parameters from the schema, adding no semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states the tool destroys a witness statement, but one sentence says 'permanently delete the specified Incidents' which conflates witness statements with incidents. The core action is clear, but the misstatement reduces clarity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to delete a witness statement versus updating or listing. Required parameters are listed, but no context on prerequisites or alternatives.

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