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

Annotations only flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description goes well beyond that by stating that open positions are never closed by deletion, that the deletion is irreversible, that a foreign mandate returns 404, that api:account scope is required, and that the response includes app_url. This is exactly the extra context the annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its scope, and every sentence carries distinct information (irreversibility, the pause alternative, confirmation, 404 behavior, return value). It is dense and slightly long for a one-parameter tool, but there is 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return value and the app_url field. Combined with auth scope, error behavior, and side-effect semantics, an agent has everything needed to call this destructive tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as a UUID, so the baseline is 3. The description adds provenance ('from list_mandates') and error semantics for an id that isn't yours (404), which is meaningfully more than the schema alone.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Delete one of YOUR saved Gambits') and scopes it with the id source ('mandate_id from list_mandates'), which cleanly separates it from get_mandate, list_mandates, and save_mandate. The ownership qualifier ('YOUR') further distinguishes it from any admin-level deletion.

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?

Gives an explicit alternative for the reversible case: 'to stop it for a while, use save_mandate action=update with status paused instead.' It also states a prerequisite workflow ('Confirm with the user first') and where the argument comes from, so when-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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