scf_delete_custom_risk

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it deletes the definition, its assessment record, every control mapping, requires editor+ role, and is irreversible. This materially helps an agent predict side effects.

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, information-dense sentences. It front-loads the core action and immediately highlights the critical destructive scope, role requirement, and irreversibility with no 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 two-parameter delete operation without an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is deleted, the permission required, and irreversibility. Nothing necessary for an agent to safely invoke this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both org_id and risk_code already described in the schema, including how to obtain them. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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 uses the specific verb 'Delete' with the explicit resource 'custom risk definition' and states the cascade scope: assessment record and every control mapping. This clearly distinguishes it from partial operations like scf_remove_custom_risk_control and other delete tools among siblings.

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 conveys clear context: it is a destructive write requiring an editor+ role and is irreversible. It implies this tool is for full custom-risk deletion rather than partial mapping removal, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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