delete_assistant

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the deletion is soft (implied reversible) and that associated rules/commands are not automatically removed. However, it does not specify whether the operation is reversible, required permissions, or impact on existing conversations.

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 concise sentences: first defines purpose, second adds essential caveat. No redundant information. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (unspecified behavior but not required per rules), the description covers the key aspects: soft-delete and side effects on rules/commands. It could mention the return value or reversibility, but overall it is adequately 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (both parameters described in input schema). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides for assistant_name and workspace_name. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states the action (delete) and resource (assistant), and specifies it's a soft-delete. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_assistant, update_assistant, get_assistant, and list_assistants.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., assistant must exist) or when not to use it. The only additional information is a cleanup note about rules/commands, which is more of a warning than usage direction.

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