vast_delete_companion

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It merely states the action without noting permanence, side effects, or any prerequisites. Deleting a companion is likely irreversible, but this is not mentioned.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Delete' and directly states the resource. This is an ideal length for such a simple operation, scoring high on conciseness.

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 one-parameter delete tool, the description is nearly sufficient, but it omits the crucial distinction from 'vast42_delete_companion'. It also does not explain what a 'VAST companion' is in this context. With no annotations or output schema, this lack of contextual detail leaves gaps.

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 already provides 100% coverage with a single 'id' parameter described as 'VAST companion ID'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond implying the companion is identified by ID. With high schema coverage, a 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a VAST companion.' This clearly conveys the core action and entity. However, it does not distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling tool 'vast42_delete_companion', which also deletes a companion, so it misses the differentiator.

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 alternatives. Notably, the sibling list contains 'vast42_delete_companion', and the description does not explain the difference (e.g., VAST vs VAST42). An agent could easily choose the wrong delete-companion tool.

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