Delete simulation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds valuable transparency by disclosing that the API path is unverified and may not work as expected, which is not captured in the annotations. This is a meaningful risk disclosure beyond structured metadata.

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 two sentences, with the action front-loaded. The second sentence is a necessary and informative caveat, and there is no redundant or extraneous wording. It is concise without sacrificing important context.

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 single-parameter delete operation with destructive annotations, the description adequately covers the action and the key reliability caveat. It does not describe return values, but no output schema exists. The openWorldHint suggests potential unknown side effects, which the caveat partially addresses, making this complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for the sole parameter (uuid), including a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, relying on the schema's baseline. The schema description is somewhat ambiguous ('or client uuid + simulation ref in params'), but since coverage is complete, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 begins with 'Delete a simulation,' a clear and specific verb+resource statement. The tool name and title reinforce this, and it distinguishes well from sibling tools like delete_client. The caveat about the unverified path does not obscure the primary purpose.

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?

The description provides a cautionary usage guideline: 'confirm with Smart NPV before relying on it,' which tells the agent to verify before use. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative deletion or simulation tools, nor does it state when deletion is appropriate. The intended usage is largely implied by the tool name.

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