Delete launched EV assessment

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description merely repeats 'Delete' and adds no additional behavioral context, such as irreversibility, required permissions, or effects on related resources. It provides no value beyond 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 description is a single, directly worded sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is appropriately concise with no filler or repetition.

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 simple schema and annotations, the description is minimally sufficient for a straightforward delete operation, but it omits usage guidelines and parameter semantics that are crucial when a large sibling set includes similar delete tools. An agent cannot reliably determine when to choose this over alternatives or how to populate assessment_id correctly.

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 input schema has one parameter, assessment_id, with zero description coverage. The description 'specific launched EV assessment' does not explain how assessment_id is structured, where to obtain it, or any constraints beyond the schema's type and minLength. This is insufficient for a tool with a single parameter and no schema descriptions.

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 'Delete a specific launched EV assessment' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (launched EV assessment), using a specific verb and object. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cymulate_ev_scheduled_delete by specifying 'launched' rather than 'scheduled'.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cymulate_ev_scheduled_delete, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing to first list launched assessments to obtain a valid assessment_id. It simply states what it does without contextual usage instructions.

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