Delete case

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses irreversibility, the full set of associated data erased, the edge case that revoked votes still count as history, and the error response. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs 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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, conditions, failure mode, alternative, side effects, return shape, and usage rule. It is front-loaded with the core action and conditions, with supporting details following in a logical order.

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 destructive single-parameter tool, this covers all necessary context: auth requirements, state constraints, error behavior, side effects, irreversibility, and return shape. There is no output schema, but the description states what the tool returns, so nothing critical is missing.

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 schema already covers the sole parameter with a precise UUID pattern and source guidance from tribeunal_get_case or tribeunal_search_cases. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning, but no compensation is needed because schema coverage is 100%.

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: permanently delete a case. It clearly distinguishes deletion from closing a case, and conditions like ownership or admin role add precise scope. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from tribeunal_close_case.

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 gives explicit when-to-use conditions: only in jury_selection or open, no votes ever cast, no verdict. It explicitly names the alternative (tribeunal_close_case) and the error case (409 case_in_use), plus a general rule: use only for cases that never really started.

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