delete_ranger_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It labels the operation as 'WRITE OPERATION' indicating it is a mutation, but it fails to disclose important behavioral traits such as whether deletion is reversible, what happens if the policy doesn't exist, or any permission requirements. This is insufficient for a destructive action.

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 concise: a single sentence plus a bold warning. It is front-loaded with the action and identification methods. While it is efficient, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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 the tool's simplicity and the existence of many sibling tools, the description covers the basic usage of identifying a policy to delete. However, it lacks details about return values, error handling, and when deletion is appropriate. For a complete tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by explaining that deletion can be done by either policy_id or by service_name+policy_name. This partially compensates for the missing schema details, but it does not clarify which parameter combinations are valid or required, nor does it specify constraints like mutual exclusivity.

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 clearly states the action (Delete) and the resource (a policy), and specifies the two identification methods (by id or by service_name + policy_name). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like update or create. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other deletion tools like delete_ranger_group, but the context of 'policy' is clear enough.

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 tells how to identify the policy but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update, disable, or other delete operations). It lacks explicit when/when-not criteria or mentions of prerequisites or side effects.

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