Delete a scout

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

Goes well beyond the supplied annotations (destructiveHint/readOnlyHint/idempotentHint) by disclosing the cascade (stops the scout on every company it runs on), the data-retention behavior (signals already found are kept), irreversibility, and the requirement for user confirmation. It even names the returned fields, so the agent knows what evidence of success to expect.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive effect, then the exclusion/alternative, then retention, then the confirmation and return shape. No sentence is filler and the risk warning appears before the alternative route.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with a declared output schema, nothing material is missing: effect scope, irreversibility, sibling alternative, retained data, and return contract are all covered. The output schema removes any need to describe the response further.

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 the single scout_id parameter is already documented with its format pattern and provenance ("from heliyos_scouts_list"). The description adds no additional parameter meaning such as id provenance rules for deleted scouts or lookup fallbacks, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Permanently deletes one custom scout") plus scope ("stops it on every company it runs on"). It also separates itself from built-in default scouts and from the sibling heliyos_scouts_update, so an agent can distinguish it without reading schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not-to-use rule (built-in scouts cannot be deleted) and routes to the correct alternative (pause via heliyos_scouts_update with state "paused"). It also adds a procedural precondition, "confirm with the user first", which is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs before a destructive call.

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