Delete a review reply

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

The description adds beyond annotations: empty response on success, legacy v4 only, and the scope (only the reply is deleted, not the review). This complements the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations; no contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with verb+resource, each sentence adds value. Extremely concise.

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 simple delete operation with no output schema, the description covers success behavior (empty response), scope, and API migration status. Enough for an agent to select and invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, meeting the baseline score.

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?

Specific verb 'Deletes' plus resource 'the business's reply to a review' clearly defines the action. The clarification that the review itself cannot be deleted distinguishes this from broader review deletion tools and prevents misuse.

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?

Provides a clear when-not: the review itself is customer-owned and cannot be deleted. It also notes the v4-only availability, guiding API choice. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like reply_to_review as the alternative for creating/updating replies.

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