infoset_delete_ticket_log

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the safety profile, and it does the single most important thing: it declares the operation 'Irreversible.' It does not cover auth/permission requirements or what the response contains, which keeps it below a 5.

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 action and ending with the risk warning. Every element (example, endpoint, irreversibility) earns its place; nothing is padded.

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 single-parameter delete with a fully documented schema and no output schema, this is nearly complete: action, example, endpoint, and irreversibility are all present. The only missing piece an agent might want is error behavior when logId is unknown or whether a payload is returned.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself explains where logId comes from (infoset_add_ticket_note or infoset_get_ticket_logs), so the description adds no further meaning about the parameter. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a ticket log entry') plus a concrete example ('a note added by mistake') and the underlying endpoint (DELETE /v1/tickets/logs/{logId}). No sibling tool deletes logs, and the contrast with read tools like infoset_get_ticket_logs is implicit in the verb.

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 clause 'such as a note added by mistake' supplies a clear usage context for when to reach for this tool. It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming alternatives (e.g., there is no non-destructive correction path mentioned), so it falls 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.