blueprint_delete_blueprint_request

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no statement of what is destroyed, whether a running/final-stage request can be removed, or what happens when 'force' is used on a non-final-stage request.

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?

Very short with no filler, but the second line merely restates the HTTP route already encoded in the tool name and schema path parameter. The wording that would actually help an agent choose this tool is absent while a redundant line is present.

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?

This is a destructive, single-required-parameter operation, and the annotations plus the fully described schema carry the safety profile and parameter semantics. What the description lacks is usage routing rather than missing mechanics, so for its complexity level it is close to sufficient.

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 100%: requestId (path), force ('Force delete if not in final stage'), and apiVersion are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema, not the prose, does the work.

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 verb+resource ('Deletes request') plus the raw path make it clear this removes a blueprint request by ID, so the basic operation is identifiable. But there is no differentiation from closely related siblings such as blueprint_cancel_blueprint_request or blueprint_delete_blueprint — an agent must guess which removal semantic applies.

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 offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It never mentions the cancel_blueprint_request alternative, nor when the 'force' flag is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer the choice of tool from the resource path alone.

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