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, and it says nothing about irreversibility, cascade effects (notes, metadata), or required permissions. 'Delete' implies a destructive write, but no consequences or safety information is disclosed.

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 short and front-loads the purpose in a single sentence. The 'Args:' block is boilerplate that restates the schema, but overall there is no wasted prose.

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?

Even with an output schema covering return values, a destructive tool with zero annotations needs to explain consequences, reversibility, and prerequisites. The description omits all behavioral context, leaving the agent under-informed before an irreversible deletion.

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% and the single parameter 'finding_id' already has the title 'Finding Id', so the description's 'The finding ID to delete' adds essentially no new meaning. At minimum it could state the expected ID format or where the ID comes from.

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 finding'), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it offers no differentiation from the many sibling mutation/close tools (e.g. close_finding, close_finding_duplicate, delete_test), so an agent cannot self-route on the description alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as closing, accepting risk, or marking a false positive, all of which are relevant siblings. The description only says what the tool does, never when to reach for it over another tool.

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