misp_delete_event

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

Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses destructive behavior and the need for confirmation (confirm:true). It does not detail cascading effects on attributes or objects, nor specific permissions, but covers key safety traits.

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 concise sentences. No extraneous information. Front-loaded with purpose and permissions.

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 2-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, permissions, and confirmation. Lacks details on return values, error cases, or cascading effects, but these are minor gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds marginal value beyond the schema. It reiterates that confirm must be true for deletion, which is already in the schema description. No additional parameter semantics.

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 tool deletes a MISP event, distinguishing it from sibling tools like misp_delete_attribute and misp_delete_object. The verb 'delete' and resource 'event' are specific.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool (to delete a MISP event) by naming the resource. It does not explicitly exclude other tools, but the context of sibling tools makes it clear. It mentions permission requirements but no direct alternatives.

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