Удалить заявку

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: deletion removes the history too (broader blast radius than just the record) and requires a confirmation pair (current revision + verbatim name), implying optimistic-concurrency guarding.

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 compact sentences, no filler. The destructive scope (with history) and the confirmation requirement are both front-loaded, so the agent can act immediately.

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?

No output schema exists and this is a destructive mutation, but the description covers the two things an agent most needs: that history is destroyed and that a confirmation pair is mandatory. It does not say what happens on a stale revision, which is a minor gap.

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 only 50% (request_id and revision are undocumented in the schema). The description partially compensates by specifying that revision must be 'current' (a concurrency requirement not in the schema) and that confirm_name must be exact, but request_id semantics and the case fallback remain unaddressed by the description.

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 (deletes a request) and adds scope beyond the name: it deletes the request together with its history. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling requests_cancel, so an agent must infer the difference.

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 states prerequisites (current revision and exact name for confirmation) but gives no guidance on when to delete versus requests_cancel or when deletion is appropriate. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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