delete_letters

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false). The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 concise at one sentence, with no unnecessary words. However, it lacks structured information (e.g., bullet points) that could improve readability, which prevents a score of 5.

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 no output schema, the description fails to provide essential context such as whether deletion is permanent, what happens to related data, or any post-deletion effects. This leaves the agent underinformed.

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 a clear description for the only parameter (letter_ids: 'comma separated letter IDs'). The tool description does not add further semantics, so baseline score of 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 'Deletes specified letters' clearly states the verb and resource, which is sufficiently specific for a delete operation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling delete tools beyond the resource name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other delete tools (e.g., delete_bank_accounts) or non-destructive actions. There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where deletion should be avoided.

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