Delete Vapi Assistant

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates the destructive nature ('Permanently delete') and irreversible consequence ('This cannot be undone'), which are critical for a deletion tool. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or response format, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 front-loaded with the core action and consequence in two concise sentences, with zero wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by emphasizing permanence and irreversibility, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a destructive deletion with no output schema and no annotations), the description is mostly complete: it clearly states the action and warns of irreversibility. However, it could improve by mentioning potential side effects (e.g., impact on associated calls) or authentication needs, slightly reducing completeness for a high-stakes operation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'assistantId' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no extra context on ID format or sourcing). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 specific action ('Permanently delete') and resource ('a Vapi assistant'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like vapi_get_assistant or vapi_update_assistant. It directly addresses what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 implies usage when deletion is needed by stating 'This cannot be undone,' which suggests caution, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vs. vapi_update_assistant for modifications) or mention prerequisites. The implication is present but not fully articulated.

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