Delete World Model Scenario

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

The description provides no behavioral transparency beyond what is already declared in the annotations. While annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description does not add any context such as irreversibility, potential cascading effects on related data, permission requirements, or whether the deletion is permanent. It adds nothing beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler words. It efficiently communicates the core action and target resource. This is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description is adequate for a straightforward delete operation with well-specified parameters, but it lacks any mention of expected return values or behavior (e.g., confirmation, error handling). The absence of an output schema makes it unclear what the agent should expect. Additionally, annotations like openWorldHint=true are not explained, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, with clear descriptions like 'The scenario id to delete' and 'The world model id'. The description does not add any additional semantic meaning to the parameters, but since the schema fully documents them, a baseline score of 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 'Delete a scenario from a world model' uses a specific verb (delete) and resource (scenario) with clear container (world model). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like lyzr_world_model_delete_persona, lyzr_world_model_delete_test_case, and lyzr_world_model_delete by specifying the exact object type being deleted.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description only states what the tool does without indicating when to use it, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. It does not reference alternatives such as deleting the entire world model versus a single scenario, nor does it mention that the scenario must exist or belong to the specified world model.

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