avanan_delete_exception

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint, but the description adds 'irreversible' and instructs to confirm with the user, giving agents a concrete safety protocol. It also specifies the deletion is by entity IDhol. No contradiction with annotations; the explicit destructive emphasis is useful. Not a 5 because it mostly restates structured intent with little operational detail beyond confirmation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence conveys the destructive nature and the exact operation the agent should complete. Every phrase contributes, no fluff.

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 simple destructive action, the description covers behavior, identifier, and safety protocol. It could mention where to obtain the entity ID or that the tool is irreversible in practical terms, but the combination of parameter names and descriptions make the call unambiguous.

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?

The schema documents both excType and excId and the allowed enum values; description adds little beyond 'by entity ID'. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 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 names the operation—deleting an exception entry—and identifies the target resource as a whitelist or blacklist entry keyed by entity ID. It is unmistakable what action the tool performs and is distinguishable from sibling add/get/update operations.

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 an important usage guardrail: confirm with the user before invoking. However, it does not explain when to choose delete over add or update, nor mention how the entity ID should be obtained (e.g., from a list operation), so the guidance is partial.

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