Request deletion

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the deletion is not immediate, the object is hidden in quarantine, and a human either approves permanent deletion or restores it. This resolves the potentially confusing combination of destructiveHint=false with a deletion tool and tells the agent the real-world lifecycle effect.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what it does, the quarantine/approval consequence, and how to follow up. The key behavioral fact (nothing is deleted right away) is front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with annotated safety hints and no output schema, the description covers the lifecycle and the follow-up tool. It stops short of saying what identifier or object reference the agent should use with get_deletion_request, a minor remaining 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 100%, so reason, object_key, and risk_score are already well documented in the schema, including that the human reads the reason and the 0-100 risk scale. The description only implies 'one object' and adds no further parameter guidance, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Ask Red Castle to delete one object') with explicit scope of exactly one object. It also differentiates the follow-up path by naming get_deletion_request, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Clearly establishes the context of use (requesting deletion of an object) and points to get_deletion_request for follow-up. It does not state explicit exclusions such as when to use list_my_deletion_requests or when not to request deletion, so it falls short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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