evidence_group_evidence_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds 'Permanently deletes' (reinforcing irreversibility) and the critical constraint that sealed groups are immutable. This goes beyond the structured annotations by explaining the operational precondition (group must be OPEN). It does not contradict any annotations.

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 two sentences with no redundant words. The core purpose is front-loaded, the open-group constraint follows logically, and the parameter chain is stated compactly. 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 delete operation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the prerequisite (open group), and the parameter dependency chain. Combined with 100% schema coverage and strong annotations (destructive, idempotent), it is largely complete. A minor ambiguity remains about whether it deletes the evidence record itself or just the group membership, but the tool naming and sibling context mitigate this.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a description with provenance (e.g., 'Obtain from evidence_group_evidence_register'). The description's 'Requires: caseFileId + evidenceGroupId + evidence_group_evidence_register → evidenceId' is a concise restatement of the relationships already detailed in the schema, adding no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Permanently deletes one evidence from an evidence group.' It uses a specific verb ('deletes') and resource ('one evidence from an evidence group'), which distinguishes it from siblings like evidence_group_delete_bulk (deletes entire group) and evidence_delete (deletes evidence globally). The scope is explicit.

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 provides clear context: 'Only makes sense while the group is still OPEN (sealed groups are immutable).' This tells the agent when to use the tool and when not to. It also mentions the required parameter chain (caseFileId + evidenceGroupId + evidence_group_evidence_register → evidenceId), which implies the evidence must have been registered via that flow. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or contrast with them.

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