delete_risk

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: deleted risks are moved to the trash and can be restored later, indicating a non-permanent soft delete. It does not mention permissions or edge cases, but the key reversibility trait 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 front-loaded with the core action and appropriately sized. However, the first two sentences are redundant—'Delete a risk. Delete a risk using its unique identifier.'—which slightly weakens conciseness, though the third sentence earns its place by describing the trash/restore behavior.

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 single-risk deletion tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers the action, identifier use, and post-deletion behavior. The main gap is parameter-level detail about the nested path object, but the schema itself supplies this, and annotations already handle the destructive/read-only profile.

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?

The schema has low description coverage (0%) and uses a nested path object, so the description must compensate. It only says 'using its unique identifier' without naming riskId, explaining the nested path structure, or clarifying the integer type. This adds little beyond what the schema already conveys, and the unusual nesting is left unexplained.

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: deleting a risk by its unique identifier. It also clarifies the scope as a single risk, which distinguishes it from batch deletion tools like post_batch_delete_risks. The purpose is immediately clear without opening the schema.

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 usage through 'using its unique identifier' and notes that deleted risks can be restored later, which hints at soft deletion. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as post_batch_delete_risks or restore_risk, leaving that inference to the agent's understanding of sibling names.

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