Borrar escenario

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine value beyond them: it discloses that the rubric and answers are deleted along with the scenario, that the effect is irreversible, and that explicit human confirmation must be requested before calling.

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 sentences: the context/severity tag and cascade scope come first, the irreversibility and confirmation requirement second. Nothing is redundant and the most decision-relevant facts are 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 destructive three-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is destroyed (cascade), irreversibility, and the confirmation gate. It could still note the access level required ('Equipo del aula' is only a hint) or what the call returns after deletion.

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% and each parameter (classroom_id, scenario_id, confirm with const true) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter formats or constraints, so the 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Borra definitivamente un escenario') and adds cascade scope ('con su rúbrica y respuestas'), which tells an agent exactly what disappears. It does not route to the closely related sibling delete_scenario_criterion for removing a single rubric criterion, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied through the '[Equipo del aula · irreversible]' tag and the instruction to obtain explicit human confirmation, which does give a real precondition. There is no explicit when-not or alternative (e.g., use update_scenario to modify, delete_scenario_criterion to remove one criterion), so the agent must infer routing from sibling names.

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