Delete Assistant

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so unusually well for a mutation: it reveals the operation is a soft-delete (recoverable/not a hard purge) and that attached persona-scoped rules and commands are NOT cascade-deleted. It omits auth/permission requirements and whether confirmation is needed, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the destructive/soft-delete nature front-loaded and the non-cascading caveat immediately after. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the two required params are fully covered by the schema. The description supplies the two most important behavioral facts (soft-delete, no cascade) for a low-complexity deletion tool; only permission/auth context is missing.

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 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents workspace_name and assistant_name (including the optional workspace prefix). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('Delete (soft-delete) an AI assistant (persona)') and scopes it to a workspace, which cleanly separates it from create_assistant and update_assistant. It does not explicitly name any sibling or contrast behavior, so it stops just short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'if no longer needed', with no explicit statement of when to prefer this over update_assistant or how to handle the case where the assistant is still referenced. It does at least flag the follow-up cleanup of persona-scoped rules and commands, which is genuine usage-relevant context.

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