policy_delete_policy

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is given. The description adds nothing beyond that — no statement about permanence, cascade effects, or what happens if the id does not exist, which is the kind of context that would earn credit over the 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 first two sentences say the same thing ('Delete a policy' then 'Delete a specified policy corresponding to its unique id'), so there is redundancy. The endpoint line does add useful routing context, and the whole thing is short, but it is not tightly front-loaded.

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 single-parameter delete with a full safety annotation set and no output schema, the description covers the minimum. It leaves out failure behavior (e.g., id not found) and confirmation of what a successful delete returns, which would round it out.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage; the schema already documents it as a UUID 'Policy ID (path)'. The description's 'unique id' and the endpoint template mildly reinforce that it is a path identifier, so 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Delete a policy') and pins it to the REST endpoint DELETE /policy/api/policies/{id}. It is unambiguous against read siblings like policy_get_policies or policy_get_policy, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 statement of when to use this versus siblings such as policy_get_policies (to locate an id) or catalog_delete_policy, and no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer the usage entirely from the verb.

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