delete_mission

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

The description explicitly states that deletion is permanent and includes all waypoints, which are critical behavioral traits for a destructive tool. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden and does so effectively, though it could mention if any confirmation or authorization is needed.

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 consists of three concise sentences, each adding essential information: action, irreversibility, and prerequisite step. No wasted words.

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 has only one required parameter, no output schema, and the description covers the key behavioral trait (permanence) and a helpful hint (use list_missions), it is largely complete. Could optionally mention that the mission must exist or that deletion cascades to waypoints, but that is implied.

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 already provides 100% coverage with a clear description for mission_id. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action (permanently delete), the resource (a mission and all its waypoints), and the irreversibility, distinguishing it from other mission operations like update_mission or duplicate_mission.

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?

It tells the agent when to use this tool (after using list_missions to find the ID) and implies it is for deletion when no longer needed, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives for non-destructive actions.

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