delete_requirement

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

Annotations already mark this destructive and non-idempotent, but the description adds the key behavioral fact they do not carry: the delete is soft, moving the item to trash with later restoration possible. It does not mention permissions or cascade effects, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Three sentences where two would do — the first two are near-duplicates ('Delete a requirement. Delete a requirement using its unique identifier.'), which wastes the front-loaded position that should carry the soft-delete information.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential reversibility fact but leaves gaps on identifier format, permissions, and how this relates to the batch-delete and restore siblings.

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 argument is a nested object (path.requirementId), which the description does not explain. Saying deletion is 'using its unique identifier' adds only marginal value over the parameter's own 'The requirement identifier.' text and does not clarify the path wrapper or accepted id form.

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 (delete) and resource (requirement) with the identifier-based scope. It implies differentiation from restore_requirement by noting items go to trash and can be restored, but never names the sibling, so an agent must infer the routing.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: soft-delete semantics ('moved to the trash') suggest this is the single-item, reversible deletion path, but the description never says when to prefer this over post_batch_delete_requirements or restore_requirement.

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