aap_delete_inventory

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description discloses the two-step confirmation mechanism: the first call returns a prompt, and the second call with a confirmation_token performs deletion. It also specifies the return type (confirmation prompt or success JSON). This adds substantial behavioral context.

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 compact, with a clear one-sentence summary followed by structured Args and Returns sections. No unnecessary words; every line is functional.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's purpose, destructive nature, confirmation workflow, parameters, and return type. Given the simple schema and the presence of destructiveHint annotation, this is complete and sufficient.

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 description lists parameters from the schema but adds minimal new meaning. It clarifies inventory_id is an 'Inventory ID' (redundant) and describes confirmation_token as 'Token from first call,' which is useful but modest. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates.

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 begins with 'Delete an AAP inventory,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling delete tools for other AAP resources (e.g., delete_host, delete_workflow_template).

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 explicitly warns 'DESTRUCTIVE - requires confirmation,' providing clear context that the caller must handle a confirmation flow. It doesn't state alternatives, but for a delete operation the intent is unambiguous and no exclusion is needed.

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