Elements Delete Source Swap Policy

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds the confirm gate and the Beta status, but says nothing about permanence, reversibility, cascading effects on elements using the policy, or required permissions.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the destructive action plus its prerequisite are front-loaded. Nothing needs trimming and nothing is buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the confirm requirement is stated. For a destructive, open-world delete, however, the description omits irreversibility, permission requirements, and impact on elements referencing the policy, which an agent needs before invoking it.

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 burden falls on the text. The description clarifies that confirm must be true (the schema lists only policy_id as required, leaving the confirm gate ambiguous), but gives no meaning for policy_id beyond its name and no format or lookup guidance.

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 ('Delete a source swap policy') and the '(Beta)' marker identifies the feature surface. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like elements_update_source_swap_policy and elements_create_source_swap_policy, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 gives one hard prerequisite ('Requires confirm=True'), which is genuine usage guidance. It does not say when to delete versus update a policy, what happens to dependent elements, or which alternative to use if the intent is removal of a swap mapping rather than the policy.

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