Recycle RFI

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=false, but the 'Recycle Bin' action is inherently destructive (soft delete). The description does not clarify the reversibility or required permissions beyond the annotations. This is a notable contradiction.

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 reasonably concise with three sentences. However, the second sentence about updating is unnecessary and introduces confusion, slightly reducing effectiveness.

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 mentions returning the modified object, which is useful given no output schema. But it lacks details on preconditions, error handling, or the effect on the RFI's status. The annotation contradiction further undermines completeness.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description merely repeats 'Required parameters: project_id, id' without adding semantic meaning beyond what the schema 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 clearly states 'Send a specified RFI to the Recycle Bin' which is a specific verb+resource action. However, it then says 'Use this to update an existing RFI records' which is confusing and does not differentiate from the general update_rfi tool among siblings.

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 like update_rfi. The description suggests it's for updating, which is misleading and provides no context for exclusions or prerequisites.

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