Webform Submission Delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says the submission is deleted. It does not disclose whether deletion is permanent or reversible, whether it cascades to attached files/revisions/handlers data, or what authorization is required — all critical 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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally fine. However, at this level of brevity for a destructive multi-context tool it reads as under-specification rather than effective concision.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a destructive, zero-annotation tool with an undocumented required identifier the description leaves out irreversibility, authorization, and identifier source. It is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter submission_id. The description adds nothing about its format, whether it is the numeric SID or a UUID, or where the agent should obtain it, leaving the only input completely undocumented.

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 (Delete) and resource (webform submission), which is enough to separate it from the config-level webform_delete and from webform_submission_get/list siblings. It is clear but bare, offering no scope or qualifier beyond the name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus webform_delete (which deletes the whole webform) or the submission list/get siblings, and no prerequisites such as required permissions or whether the parent webform must exist. The agent must infer all routing from the name alone.

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