delete_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavioral restriction (FAILED status only), which is valuable. However, it does not mention whether deletion is permanent, whether associated data is affected, or any permission requirements. For a destructive operation, this is a moderate gap.

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 two short sentences with no redundant information. Every word earns its place, and the constraint is stated directly after the purpose without any filler.

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 tool with no output schema and a simple operation, the description covers the essentials: what it does and the one critical precondition. It is not overly complex, so no further explanation of return values or side effects is strictly needed, though a note on permanence would have made it complete.

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 covers 100% of the parameters, with scan_id already having a clear description ('The unique identifier of the scan to delete'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema does the work.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Delete a scan') and adds a crucial constraint ('Only scans in FAILED status can be deleted'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling delete tools like delete_schedule or delete_scan_config. The resource and action are unambiguous.

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 clearly indicates when the tool is applicable: only for scans in FAILED status. This serves as an implicit exclusion (do not use for non-FAILED scans), though it does not explicitly name alternatives or say what to do instead. The context provided is sufficient for basic usage.

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