Delete EV scenario

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

The description only says 'Delete', which is already implied by the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true). It adds no additional behavioral context such as whether the deletion is permanent, if it affects existing scheduled runs, or if any confirmation or special permissions are required. No contradiction with annotations, but zero added transparency.

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?

While the description is short, it is under-specified rather than concise. The single sentence 'Delete an EV scenario' is essentially a restatement of the tool title, adding no new information. It does not earn its place as a meaningful description.

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 operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description leaves out critical context: what happens upon deletion, whether the scenario can be recovered, how it interacts with other scenario-related tools, and what success/failure responses look like. The annotations convey only superficial safety hints, not the full behavioral picture.

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 does not mention the required parameter 'scenario_id' at all. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for the schema's minimal semantics but fails to explain what the ID refers to, where to find it, or any format requirements. The agent is left without any parameter guidance beyond the bare schema.

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 explicitly states the action 'Delete' and the resource 'EV scenario', making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools that perform other operations (update, create, get) on the same resource type.

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 provides no usage guidance whatsoever. It does not mention when to use this tool versus the similarly named 'cymulate_ev_scheduled_delete' or 'cymulate_ev_launched_delete', nor does it state any prerequisites or conditions for deletion. It simply restates the action without context.

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