vast42_delete_companion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies destructiveness, but the description does not disclose whether the deletion is irreversible, whether it cascades to related entities, or what permissions are required. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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, focused sentence with no redundant or extraneous words. It communicates the essential purpose in a scannable manner.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema) and the schema covers the parameter, but the description lacks essential contextual information for a delete operation. There is no mention of side effects, reversibility, or any cautionary notes. With no annotations available, the description is insufficient to fully understand the consequences of this action.

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 input schema fully documents the only parameter `id` with a clear description ('VAST 4.2 companion ID'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 states the action ('Delete') and the target resource ('VAST 4.2 companion'), making it distinct from sibling CRUD operations like create, update, and get. The version qualifier '4.2' also differentiates it from the non-versioned `vast_delete_companion`. However, the description is minimal and does not add nuance beyond the tool name.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., the companion must exist), or whether deletion is permanent. Given the large number of sibling tools, this lack of context is a clear deficiency.

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