delete_trust_policy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive nature ('destructive') and auth requirement. However, it does not state whether deletion is permanent, what the response looks like (no output schema), or any side effects. It provides basic but not comprehensive 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?

Extremely concise: two sentences totaling 16 words. The purpose is front-loaded, and every word adds value with no fluff.

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 simple destructive operation with no output schema, the description is sufficient but minimal. It misses common contextual details like error behavior, idempotency, or confirmation steps. Given the complexity (low), it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds some context (delete by UUID, requires account-scoped token) but does not enhance the meaning of individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., format, validation, how to obtain values).

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 ('Delete'), the resource ('WIF trust policy'), and the identifier ('by UUID'). It distinguishes the tool from numerous sibling delete tools (e.g., delete_dashboard, delete_monitor) by specifying the unique 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 mentions a prerequisite (account-scoped platform token) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_trust_policy_mapping, or how to obtain the UUID. No explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' advice.

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