vast42_delete_campaign_assignment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Delete' but does not mention whether the deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to related data, whether special permissions are required, or what the return/error behavior is. The bare verb conveys only basic destructive intent.

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 a single short sentence, 'Delete a VAST 4.2 campaign assignment', with no filler or redundant content. It is immediately readable and front-loaded.

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 one-id delete operation, the description is minimally adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema, it omits useful context such as whether the action is reversible, whether it affects assignments in other states, and what the response contains. Given the large family of sibling CRUD tools, a little more context would improve 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the only parameter (id) with 'VAST 4.2 campaign assignment ID'. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond echoing the resource name, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('VAST 4.2 campaign assignment'), clearly stating what the tool does. The 'vast42' prefix differentiates it from the generic vast_delete_campaign_assignment and delete_campaign_assignment 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many related assignment tools (e.g., vast42_get_campaign_assignment, vast42_update_campaign_assignment, draft_delete_campaign_assignment, delete_campaign_assignment). The description merely states an action without context, preconditions, or alternatives.

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