delete_trust_boundary

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does add value by disclosing the batch behavior and stating the return type ('Returns: A confirmation message'). Yet it fails to disclose important behavioral traits such as cascading effects on associated entities (e.g., crossing points), irreversibility, or error behavior when no arguments are provided, which are crucial for a destructive operation.

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 primary action and batch note, making the core purpose immediately clear. However, it becomes somewhat redundant: the first paragraph and the second paragraph repeat the same deletion behavior, and the 'Args' section duplicates schema definitions. Still, the overall length is manageable and mostly focused.

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?

The complexity is moderate (single vs batch delete), and the output schema richness is not provided. The description covers the main usage modes but leaves gaps: it does not specify what occurs when both id and ids are supplied (schema says id is ignored, but the description omits this), what happens with no arguments, or whether the deletion cascades to related architecture elements. These omissions prevent it from being fully complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema's parameter meanings and adds a 'ctx' argument that is not part of the exposed input schema, which could confuse an agent. It clarifies the single vs batch relationship but does not materially extend beyond the schema's existing descriptions, especially since the schema already notes that when ids is provided, id is ignored.

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 opens with 'Delete a trust boundary' – a specific verb and resource – and immediately introduces batch capabilities with 'Supports batch operations via the 'ids' parameter.' It clearly states it deletes one or more trust boundaries, distinguishing it from other delete tools (e.g., delete_trust_zone, delete_crossing_point) by targeting the correct entity.

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 single-item vs batch usage instructions ('For single item: provide the id directly. For batch: provide a list of IDs in the 'ids' parameter.'), giving the agent explicit direction on how to invoke each mode. However, it does not mention alternatives like clear_trust_boundaries for bulk deletion or update_trust_boundary for modification, so the exclusion guidance is absent.

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