Delete custom_sensor

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the tool refuses while the sensor is in use, and force=true overrides the refusal. It does not mention irreversibility or what cascades from deletion, keeping it short of 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 short sentences with the destructive precondition front-loaded immediately after the purpose statement. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the one non-obvious risk factor (in-use refusal and the force escape hatch). A brief note that deletion is permanent would close the last gap, but the destructiveHint annotation already signals that.

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%, and the schema already documents both force ("Delete even if in use") and custom_sensor ("id or exact name"). The description only echoes the force semantics already present in the schema, adding no syntax or edge-case detail, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Delete a custom sensor") that maps directly to the tool name and cannot be confused with create_custom_sensor, update_custom_sensor, or list_custom_sensors. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, but the verb alone does the disambiguating work.

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 second sentence implies a use condition by describing when the call fails, which implicitly tells the agent when to set force. However, it never states the alternative action (e.g., update or deactivate instead of delete) or any prerequisites, so the guidance is inferential rather than explicit.

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