delete_scenario

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

The description adds the behavioral detail that deletion is permanent and irreversible, which goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but for a simple delete operation this is sufficient; a higher score would require more depth.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and every word serves a purpose. The warning about permanence earns its place without bloat.

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?

A simple destructive operation with one well-documented parameter, a clear description, supportive annotations, and an output schema. The description fully covers behavior and consequences, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 input schema already provides full coverage with a clear description of scenario_id as 'The scenario UUID to delete' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Delete a saved scenario'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_scenario, list_scenarios, and update_scenario. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 context is clear: use this tool to delete a saved scenario. The warning 'Permanent, cannot be undone' adds a cautionary usage guideline. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., update_scenario for modifications), so it falls just short of a 5.

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