accessibility_declarations_delete_instance

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, and it discloses nothing: not that the operation is destructive and likely irreversible, not whether dependent resources are affected, not auth requirements. A raw endpoint string is insufficient for a delete tool.

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 text is short but the entire content is duplicated verbatim in parentheses, adding zero information. Brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness, since nothing useful is front-loaded.

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 destructive delete operation with no annotations, no output schema, and a trivial description, the definition leaves out everything an agent would need: consequences, preconditions, error behavior, and confirmation semantics. It is not adequate to invoke safely.

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?

Only one parameter (id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The path template '{id}' in the description merely mirrors the parameter without adding format, source, or constraint details, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete HTTP verb and resource path (DELETE /v1/accessibilityDeclarations/{id}), so an agent can infer it deletes an accessibility declaration by id. However, it is essentially the tool name rendered as an endpoint, with no prose about what a declaration is and no differentiation from siblings like accessibility_declarations_update_instance.

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 whatsoever on when to use this tool versus the sibling create/get/update variants, nor any precondition such as required permissions or irreversibility. An agent learns nothing beyond the HTTP method.

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