dossier_delete

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the action is irreversible and lists the required parameters, providing context beyond annotations, though it omits details like authentication or error conditions.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, specifying status constraints and irreversibility, and listing required parameters. No extraneous content.

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 deletion tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary behavior and constraints adequately. However, it lacks details on error responses or what happens if the dossier is in an invalid state.

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 only lists the required parameter names (caseFileId and dossierId) without explaining their purpose or format, offering minimal added value over the schema.

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 tool deletes a dossier, specifying the applicable statuses (DRAFT and CERTIFIED) and that it is irreversible. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dossier_create, dossier_update, and dossier_certify.

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 states when to use the tool (for draft or certified dossiers) and notes irreversibility, but does not mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., for draft dossiers that could be updated instead).

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