delete_guardrail

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

The description goes beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true) by detailing the irreversible nature and the cascading effect on configs. This adds valuable behavioral context about consequences, complementing the annotation.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides a critical warning. No unnecessary words, earning its place.

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 simple nature of a delete operation with one required parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, how to identify the guardrail, and the irreversible consequences. Complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The only parameter 'guardrail_id' is already well-described in the schema as 'The guardrail UUID or slug to delete'. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for 100% coverage.

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 clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'guardrail', specifying identification by 'id or slug'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_guardrail' or 'update_guardrail'.

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 explicit guidance: it warns that the action is irreversible and removes checks from dependent configs, advising to review those first. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use, the warning implies careful consideration. It offers clear context for usage.

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