rm_delete_assignment

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and not read-only, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds value by explicitly warning that the deletion requires confirm=True, which alerts the agent to a mandatory safety gate beyond the basic destructive hint.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and immediately communicates the destructive nature and the confirmation requirement.

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 two-parameter delete tool, the description, schema, and annotations together provide enough context: the target is clear, the destructive flag is present, and confirm behavior is stated. The only minor gap is no explicit mention of what happens if confirm is false, but the schema default makes that inferable.

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 confirm=True is required for the destructive action, which is not stated in the schema. However, it does not explain assignment_id beyond its name, leaving some semantic weight to the schema field.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('resource assignment'), and adds a critical caution that the operation is destructive. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like rm_update_assignment, rm_get_assignment, and rm_delete_assignment_subtask.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a resource assignment needs to be removed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give exclusion criteria, but the included confirm=True requirement is a useful prerequisite for executing the deletion.

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