delete_clam_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies destruction, but the description never states whether the config is recoverable, whether it is currently in use by active scans, or what permission is required.

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?

Four words with zero padding and the object of the action front-loaded, so nothing is wasted. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency for a destructive operation of this complexity.

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?

A destructive, mutation-class tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation has only a four-word description to work with. Nothing about irreversibility, side effects, or identifier sourcing is conveyed, leaving the agent materially under-informed.

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 single required 'id' parameter is a bare number with no meaning attached anywhere. The description does not say whether this is the config ID, name, or index, nor how to obtain valid values (e.g., from list_clam_configs).

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 and resource ('Delete ClamAV config'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling create_clam_config, update_clam_config, and list_clam_configs. It stops short of explicitly routing to those siblings, but the CRUD verb makes the distinction obvious.

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 on when to use this tool versus update_clam_config or create_clam_config, no prerequisites, and no warning about when deletion is inappropriate or irreversible. The agent must infer all of this from the verb alone.

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