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

The description adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it discloses the required permission, guarantees the first call performs no write/delete/cancel/send, explains that a 'confirm' boolean is ignored, and states that the token expires in five minutes and is single-use. These details are crucial for safely invoking a destructive operation and are not encoded in the schema or annotations.

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 front-loaded with the permission requirement and purpose, then explains the two-step token flow in compact, non-repetitive sentences. Every sentence adds operational value.

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 destructive two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical confirm-token workflow and the non-mutating nature of the first call. It could do more to describe return_id or post-delete effects, but the essential invocation behavior is 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It thoroughly documents confirm_token and its two-step lifecycle, but return_id is only implied by common naming rather than explicitly described.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a return') and includes the required permission scope ('Requires items.delete'), making the operation identifiable. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from its close sibling cancel_return, leaving the agent to infer the difference between deleting and cancelling a return.

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?

It clearly explains the required two-step flow: a first dry-run call returns confirmation_required and a token, and a second call with identical arguments plus confirm_token performs the delete. It still lacks guidance on when to choose delete_return over cancel_return or other return-related tools.

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