opportunities_delete_opportunity

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, but the description adds no behavioral detail beyond that. It does not mention permanence, cascading effects, or required permissions. Since it adds no value beyond annotations, it scores low.

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 only two words, which is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It lacks necessary context that would make it useful, so it does not earn a high score for structure.

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?

Given that this is a destructive operation with openWorldHint, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain implications like data loss, scope, or external effects, and there is no output schema to clarify behavior.

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?

The input schema fully describes the single 'id' parameter with 'Opportunity Id', providing 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 Opportunity' clearly states a specific verb and resource, and the tool name reinforces it. However, it does not differentiate from other delete tools beyond the resource name, and there is no added context about what an opportunity is or scope. It is clear but minimal.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites or side effects. It simply states the action with no usage context.

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