delete_finding

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It clearly states the operation is DESTRUCTIVE, PERMANENT, cannot be undone, requires confirm=True, and that the finding is permanently removed. It also instructs the agent to warn the user beforehand, going well beyond the bare 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the critical warning. While there is some repetition of the destructive/permanent message across multiple sections, the redundancy is arguably justified for a safety-critical destructive operation and does not obscure meaning.

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 is complete for this tool's complexity: it covers the action, required parameter, confirmation safety gate, permanent consequences, user-warning duty, and excludes misuse cases. No output schema exists, but a delete operation with this guidance does not require additional return-value explanation.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description documents both parameters: finding_id as the required ID to delete, and confirm as a mandatory safety gate that must be True. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's bare type/default declarations, especially clarifying the confirm parameter's behavioral role.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Delete a finding by ID.' It clearly contrasts with sibling operations like get_finding, save_finding, and list_findings, and even identifies update as the correct action for duplicates. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from nearby tools.

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 gives explicit call conditions under 'AUTOMATIC TRIGGERS' and explicit exclusions under 'DO NOT CALL for,' including naming 'update instead' for duplicate cleanup and forbidding calls without explicit user confirmation. This is exemplary when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance.

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