Delete a rule

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds the non-obvious gate that nothing is sent without confirm: true and that the call returns a request preview instead. It also notes there is no server-side dry run, which prevents an agent from assuming confirm is redundant with a simulation endpoint. It stops short of saying whether deletion is permanent or what happens to schedules/runs that reference the rule.

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?

Two sentences, zero padding, with the endpoint reference and the write gate front-loaded. Nothing repeats the title.

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 destructive write with no output schema, the description covers the critical decision point (the confirm gate and the preview return) that an agent needs before invoking. It could be stronger by stating permanence and whether confirm-less calls count toward rate limits, but it is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 67% and both confirm and idempotencyKey are already documented in the schema; the description only reinforces confirm's effect. The required 'id' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, but its meaning is obvious from the path template.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a rule') and pins it to the endpoint DELETE /v1/rules/{id}, which unambiguously separates it from rules_create, rules_update, rules_get and rules_list. It does not explicitly contrast with a sibling, but the name/verb pairing leaves little 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?

It makes the trigger condition for execution explicit (confirm: true is required), which is real usage guidance. It gives no when-not guidance, no prerequisites (permissions, whether the rule must be paused or unreferenced), and does not point to rules_update or rules_get as the non-destructive alternatives.

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