delete_sla_policy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Xoá' (delete), implying a destructive action, but provides no details on side effects, irreversibility, confirmation steps, or error states.

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 very short (4 words) but omission of critical details (like what policy is deleted, consequences) makes it underspecified rather than concise. Every word is not earning its place.

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?

Given no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should provide more completeness. It fails to explain the scope of the deletion, prerequisites, effects, or confirmation. It is inadequate for a potentially destructive operation.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4 per rules. However, the description does not clarify how the tool identifies which SLA policy to delete (e.g., implicitly based on context or an identifier elsewhere). This missing nuance reduces the score.

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 'Xoá chính sách SLA' (Vietnamese for 'Delete SLA policy'), which clearly identifies the verb (delete) and resource (SLA policy). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, get, update, list. However, using Vietnamese while other tool names and schemas are in English may cause confusion for an English-oriented agent.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool or when not to. It does not mention prerequisites, such as ensuring the policy is not in use or that the user has appropriate permissions. No alternatives are suggested.

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