delete_finding

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely repeats the destructive verb and does not state whether deletion is permanent, whether related data is affected, whether it is undoable, or whether any confirmation is involved. This is insufficient for a delete 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 very short and free of filler, which is structurally clean. However, it is so terse that it reads as a restatement of the tool name rather than an informative definition, so the brevity is not fully earning its place.

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 simple one-parameter schema and presence of an output schema mean the agent has enough to attempt invocation, but the description omits deletion semantics, side effects, and any relationship to sibling tools. For a destructive tool with no annotations, this is not complete enough.

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, but it only says 'delete a finding.' It implicitly connects finding_id to the finding being deleted, but it does not explain the parameter's meaning, format, or any constraints beyond the schema's required flag.

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 'finding 을 삭제한다' clearly states a specific verb (delete) and resource (finding), so an agent can determine the core operation. However, it is essentially a direct paraphrase of the tool name and offers no elaboration on what a finding is or what deletion entails, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as undo, clear_layer, delete_node, delete_edge, or update_finding. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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