delete_threat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the operation deletes threats and returns a confirmation message, but it does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, whether there are cascading effects on related entities (e.g., mitigations), or if any confirmation/permissions are needed. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 structured into sections (overview, usage, args, returns) but contains redundancy (e.g., the first sentence repeats 'Delete a threat' twice) and includes the non-schema 'ctx' parameter, adding noise. It could be tighter.

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 simple CRUD delete, the description covers the basics: what it does, how to use single vs. batch, and return value. However, it lacks edge-case behavior (e.g., nonexistent threat), side effects, and any dependencies, while having no annotations or schema descriptions to back it up. It is minimally complete but not thorough.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'id' for single deletion and 'ids' for batch, and their roles. However, it misleadingly includes 'ctx' which is not in the schema, and it does not clarify behavior when both 'id' and 'ids' are provided or the mutual exclusivity implied.

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 tool deletes a threat from the model, with specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('threat'), and explicitly mentions batch operation support. This distinguishes it from sibling threat operations like add, list, get, and update.

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 instructions for single vs. batch modes, including which parameter to use in each case. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is straightforward enough for the agent to know when to use this tool.

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