delete_investigation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden, and it excels: it discloses that this is a hard delete, specifies which storage layers are affected (MySQL rows + R2 prefix), states what is retained (sha256 blobs), and identifies refusal conditions. This is substantial behavioral context for a destructive operation.

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 composed of three short, purposeful sentences. Each provides critical information: what is deleted, what is refused, and what is retained. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: scope, storage layers, retention, and refusal cases. It could mention return values or error handling, but given the simplicity and the schema's parameter documentation, 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?

The input schema already covers both parameters with clear descriptions (access_token, investigation_id) and 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 clearly states the verb 'Hard-delete' with a specific resource ('ACTIVE investigation') and scope (MySQL rows + R2 prefix). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly limiting to active investigations and mentioning sealed/archived refusal, which differentiates it from seal_investigation and other lifecycle tools.

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 a clear when-not condition ('Sealed/archived refuse') and implies when-to-use (for active investigations). However, it does not name alternative tools or suggest what to do for sealed/archived cases, so it falls short of full guidance.

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