Delete scenario

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying irreversibility and the failure condition, and notes that a confirmation is returned. No contradictions.

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 three concise sentences, each adding value: action, constraints, and return behavior. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 simple delete tool with one parameter, the description covers irreversibility, precondition, and return. Without an output schema, mentioning confirmation is helpful. Could elaborate on what the confirmation contains, but it's adequate.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and the parameter description already included in the schema, the tool description adds minimal new information about the parameter. The schema already describes 'The uuid of the scenario to permanently delete.' Baseline 3 applies.

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 action 'permanently deletes a scenario' with the specific identifier 'by its uuid', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_scenario or list_compatible_tags. The verb and resource are explicit.

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 important usage context: the deletion is permanent and 'fails if simulation runs still reference the scenario'. This tells the agent when not to use it (if referenced). It could be improved by stating when to use it, but the prerequisite is clear.

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