Delete Vapi Squad

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 states the action is 'permanently delete', which implies a destructive, irreversible operation, but lacks details on permissions required, side effects (e.g., impact on related calls or assistants), error handling, or confirmation steps. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple deletion operation and front-loaded with the key action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like what 'permanently' entails (e.g., irreversibility), potential dependencies, or what happens post-deletion (e.g., success confirmation or error responses), leaving gaps that could hinder safe and effective use by an agent.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'squadId' parameter fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or sourcing guidance), so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 ('permanently delete') and resource ('a squad'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling deletion tools like 'vapi_delete_assistant' beyond the resource name, missing an opportunity to clarify what makes a squad different from other deletable entities.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the squad ID from a list operation), consequences of deletion, or when to choose this over similar tools like 'vapi_delete_assistant', leaving the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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