delete_risk_acceptance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. Beyond the word 'Delete' implying a mutation, it discloses nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, or whether the acceptance can be restored — all critical for a destructive 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 short and the core action is front-loaded, which is good. However, the 'Args:' block is pure restatement of the schema and adds no value, so space is spent without earning it.

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 not be explained. But for a destructive, unannotated single-parameter tool, the absence of any warning about irreversibility, permissions, or side effects leaves a meaningful gap.

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 restates the parameter name ('risk_acceptance_id: The risk acceptance ID') — information already conveyed by the schema property title. No format, origin, or lookup guidance is added.

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 and resource ('Delete a risk acceptance'), which is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from the closely related siblings expire_risk_acceptance and reinstate_risk_acceptance, so it lacks the sibling-awareness a 5 would require.

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 delete versus expire or reinstate a risk acceptance, nor any mention of prerequisites or consequences. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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