delete_outgoing_payment

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false). It does not mention irreversibility, side effects, or any conditions that might prevent deletion, relying entirely on the 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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. It merely repeats the tool name without providing useful structural information, so it fails to earn its place as a valuable description.

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 tool, the description is too sparse to be complete. It lacks information about return values, behavior on non-existent IDs, and any constraints. While annotations cover destructive intent, the description itself does not enrich the context enough for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without additional assumptions.

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% with the 'id' parameter described as 'Outgoing Payment id'. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema already fully documents it.

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 'Delete Outgoing Payment' is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title, providing no additional specificity. It identifies a verb and resource but does not distinguish from sibling tools beyond the obvious action, nor does it clarify scope or effect.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_outgoing_payment or get_outgoing_payment. No use cases, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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