cigchat_openai_embeddings_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the irreversible destructive nature, the two-step confirmation process, and the required authorization scope—all critical behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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, each informative: action+endpoint, destructive warning, and usage instruction. No redundancy; every sentence earns 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?

For a destructive delete tool, the description covers the essential workflow (impact statement, confirmation token, scope). It does not detail the content of the impact statement or post-deletion response, but given no output schema and the simplicity of the operation, it is largely complete.

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 already describes both parameters (id and confirm) with 100% coverage. However, the description adds meaningful context for `confirm` by explaining it is a token from a prior response and that using it after human approval is required, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 opens with 'Delete embedding', a clear verb+resource pairing, and reinforces it with the exact DELETE endpoint. This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cigchat_openai_embeddings_create or cigchat_openai_embeddings_update.

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 explicitly instructs to call once without `confirm` to receive an impact statement, and states the required 'Manage Team' scope. It does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives, but the destructive nature and confirmation flow provide clear usage context.

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