form_delete_resource_action

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, and the description neither contradicts nor enriches that profile. It adds nothing about consequences — whether deletion is permanent, what happens to forms referencing the action, required permissions, or the response on success/failure — and its second line merely repeats the annotation title.

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?

Two short lines, front-loaded with the action, so it is not bloated. But the second line duplicates the annotation title verbatim and consumes space without adding information, while the sentence that would actually help — scope and effect — is missing.

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, open-world mutation with no output schema and only a placeholder parameter description, so the description carries real explanatory burden. It supplies none of the safety context an agent needs (irreversibility, prerequisites, what a failure looks like), leaving the definition barely above the raw HTTP signature.

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?

Nominal schema coverage is 100%, but the only description is the placeholder "(path)", so the schema conveys almost nothing. The description's URL line lightly implies the id is a resource-action identifier in the path, but it never states the id format, where an agent obtains a valid id (e.g. from form_list_actions or form_get_resource_action), or what happens with an unknown id.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("Delete resource action") plus the underlying endpoint, so the basic action is unambiguous. However, in a surface containing form_delete_form, form_delete_custom_resource_type, form_delete_forms_delete_by_source_and_type, abx_delete_action and many other delete tools, it never clarifies that this deletes a *custom resource action* registered in the form service rather than a generic action or form. Sibling differentiation is absent.

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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of an alternative among the many near-identical delete siblings (e.g. abx_delete_action, deployment_delete_resource). The agent must infer scope entirely from the name and URL path.

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