delete_initiative

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

The description discloses one behavioral trait: it raises a ToolError when the initiatives feature is disabled, and notes that the initiative is then a work item. However, it does not mention whether deletion is permanent, involves cascading effects, or requires special permissions. With no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps for a destructive operation.

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: a single clear sentence plus a compact Args/Raises structure. Every line adds value, and the error information is presented without fluff. It is well-structured and 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the call signature and a key error case. However, it omits what happens on success (e.g., returns nothing, confirmation), and does not address irreversibility or side effects, which are important for a delete operation. Thus it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema only defines initiative_id as a string, but the description adds critical semantics: it is a UUID and identifies the initiative to be deleted. This provides necessary meaning beyond the raw type, fully covering the single parameter despite 0% schema coverage.

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 'Delete an initiative by ID' with a specific verb (delete) and resource (initiative), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create/retrieve/update_initiative. It also specifies the parameter type (UUID), removing ambiguity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While 'delete' implies a clear action, the description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or cases where other tools (e.g., delete_work_item) might be appropriate. The only conditional guidance is about the disabled feature error, but it does not clarify alternative tools.

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