clm_incident_command_delete_incident

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

Beyond the `destructiveHint` annotation, the description discloses that this is a logical, non-physical deletion and that it has a side effect: recalculating the owning shipment's incident counts. This gives the agent important behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide, with no contradiction.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action, then provides the mechanism and side effect. Every phrase adds meaningful information, and there is no wasted or redundant text.

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 one-parameter delete command with an output schema and a `destructiveHint` annotation, the description is largely complete: it explains what is deleted, how, and what downstream effect occurs. The main gap is the lack of explicit parameter guidance, but the nested schema and the tool name make `ItemId` reasonably inferable.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it never mentions `ItemId` or how to specify which incident to delete. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory and there is only one parameter, but the description adds no direct meaning beyond the schema.

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: 'Soft-deletes an incident'. It goes beyond a generic delete by explaining the exact mechanism (marking as `IsMarkedToDelete`) and distinguishing this from physical removal, which makes the tool's purpose unmistakable even among many delete-related siblings.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool—when an incident should be deleted—but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no exclusion or comparison to `update_incident` or other incident commands, so usage guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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