delete_tool_policy

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

The description only states the tool removes a policy, implying a destructive action, but lacks details on required permissions, reversibility, error handling, or what happens if the policy does not exist. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely concise, using a single sentence and a brief Args block. Every element serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no nested objects), the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain return values, but an output schema is present. However, it omits context about 'local enforcement policy' and potential side effects, leaving some gaps for an AI agent.

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?

The description includes an Args section that describes the tool_name parameter as 'Name of the tool to remove the policy for', adding meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition. However, with 0% schema description coverage, more detailed guidance (e.g., format, constraints) would be beneficial.

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 action (Remove) and the resource (local enforcement policy). It is specific and directly conveys the tool's function, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_tool_policy or list_tool_policies.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_tool_policy or list_tool_policies. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions.

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