delete_log_parsing_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects (e.g., impact on logs), or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for safe agent use.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's action and resource. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 a destructive tool with no annotations, 2 parameters (0% schema coverage), and an output schema (which might help), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context, parameter guidance, and usage rules, making it insufficient for safe and effective agent invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the schema—doesn't explain what 'rule_id' or 'account_id' represent, their formats, or how to obtain them (e.g., from 'list_log_parsing_rules'). With 2 parameters and low coverage, this is inadequate.

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 log parsing rule' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (log parsing rule), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_log_parsing_rule' or 'test_log_parsing_rule' beyond the verb, and it lacks specificity about what deletion entails (permanent vs. soft, scope, etc.).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing rule), exclusions, or related tools like 'list_log_parsing_rules' for selection. Usage is implied only by the verb 'delete,' with no explicit context.

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