delete_mitigation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the destructive nature, batch support, and confirmation return, but does not mention side effects, reversibility, or prerequisites. This is adequate but not rich.

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 reasonably structured with Args/Returns, but the opening two sentences are redundant ('Delete a mitigation from the model' and 'This tool deletes one or more mitigations from the threat model'). Could be tightened without losing clarity.

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 two-parameter delete tool with an output schema, the description covers the key usage modes and return type. It does not discuss errors or edge cases, but the tool is simple enough that this is not a major gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'id' is for single-item mode and 'ids' for batch, and clarifies that 'id' is required in single mode, adding meaning beyond the bare schema properties.

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?

Clearly states it deletes a mitigation from the model, specifying the exact resource and operation. It distinguishes from sibling delete_* tools by explicitly naming 'mitigation' and 'threat model'.

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?

Provides clear usage context for single versus batch deletion via the 'id' and 'ids' parameters. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use, but the single/batch guidance is actionable and specific.

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