delete_qualityprofile_by_id

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a destructive but idempotent operation. The description adds the HTTP DELETE method and path, which reinforces the destructive nature, but it does not disclose what happens to associated data, whether deletion is permanent, or any authorization requirements. It does not contradict 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 very short and front-loaded with the core action, which is good, but it includes the raw HTTP endpoint and an Args section that mostly duplicates the schema. It is concise but under-specified; the space could have been used for behavioral or usage context.

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 destructive operation with one required parameter and no output schema details, the description is too thin. It lacks any mention of side effects, error conditions, or relationship to other quality profile tools. The annotations cover safety hints, but the description does not provide enough context for an agent to confidently invoke this tool in a real workflow.

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%, and the description only says 'id: Path parameter.' This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's 'id' integer property. It does not explain what the id refers to (e.g., the quality profile's unique identifier), how to obtain it, or any constraints like existence requirements.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('Delete QualityProfile') and includes the HTTP endpoint, so an agent can tell it performs deletion of a quality profile by id. However, it does not differentiate from the many other delete_*_by_id siblings beyond the resource name, and the description is essentially a restatement of the tool name with the endpoint appended.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_qualityprofile_by_id vs list_qualityprofile or update_qualityprofile_by_id. The description only states the HTTP method and path, with no context about prerequisites, consequences, or when deletion is appropriate.

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