Delete Governance

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which align with the 'delete' action. The description adds no extra behavioral details beyond the scoping to an agent's git repo, and does not state permanence or side effects. It is consistent with annotations and provides minimal added value.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and avoids any fluff. Every word contributes directly to the meaning, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 delete operation with one parameter and existing annotations, the description is adequately complete. It specifies what is deleted and the target scope, though it could optionally mention what happens after deletion or any effects on the repo. Given the tool's simplicity, this is sufficient.

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 single parameter 'agent_id' is fully described in the schema ('Agent id'), and the tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond clarifying that the agent's git repo is the target. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3 and there is no additional contribution.

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 specifies the action (delete), the resource (governance policy), and the scope (for an agent's git repo). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like lyzr_git_get_governance or lyzr_git_save_governance by focusing on the delete operation.

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 usage: use this when you want to delete a governance policy. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or caveats. The intended use is mostly left to inference.

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