Delete RAI Policy

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

Annotations already disclose that this tool is destructive (destructiveHint=true) and not read-only (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds no extra behavioral detail, such as irreversibility, effect on dependent resources, permissions needed, or error behavior. It simply restates the destructive action.

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, focused sentence that conveys the action, object, and mechanism without any filler words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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?

This is a simple delete tool with one parameter and annotations covering its destructive nature. The description is adequate for basic understanding, but it lacks context about the outcome (e.g., success/failure response), prerequisite that the policy must exist, or any consequences of deletion. Given the low complexity, this is acceptable but not fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description's 'by id' clarifies that the sole parameter `policy_id` is the identifier of the guardrail policy. However, it does not elaborate on the format, source, or how to obtain the ID, providing only minimal compensation for the missing schema description.

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 (guardrail policy), and the method (by id). It distinguishes from sibling tools like lyzr_rai_create_policy or lyzr_rai_list_policies by explicitly indicating deletion.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as obtaining the policy ID from a list/get call, or when to prefer deletion over other operations. The usage is only implied by the verb 'Delete'.

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