sigma_delete_user_attribute_for_tenant

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the confirm=True requirement and reinforces the destructive nature, which is useful beyond the structured metadata. It doesn't contradict annotations; it complements them with the confirmation behavior.

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 three short sentences: purpose, destructive warning, and confirmation requirement. Every word earns its place, with the most critical information front-loaded. There is no fluff or repetition of schema fields.

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 delete tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, destructive nature, and confirmation requirement. It doesn't explain return values, but an output schema exists, so that's acceptable. Slight gap: no detail on what 'assignment' means or whether deletion is reversible, but given the annotations and simple scope, it's sufficiently 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that tenant_org_id refers to 'a specific tenant' and mentions confirm=True, but it doesn't explain attribute_id beyond its name. The schema provides titles and types, so the description adds some but not enough context to fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 clearly specifies the action ('Delete'), the resource ('user attribute assignment'), and the scope ('for a specific tenant'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sigma_delete_user_attribute_for_user and sigma_delete_user_attribute_for_team, and from set/update variants for tenants.

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 states 'DESTRUCTIVE' and 'Requires confirm=True', providing clear context for when this tool should be used (for destructive tenant-scoped deletions) and an explicit prerequisite (confirmation). It doesn't name alternative tools explicitly, but the purpose clarity implies the appropriate context.

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