delete_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It effectively communicates the destructive nature ('permanently', 'cannot be undone') and the safety guard mechanism. Minor gap: does not mention cascading effects on related entities (appointments, payments) or authorization requirements.

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?

Three sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded WARNING label immediately signals risk. Each sentence serves distinct purposes: warning, irreversibility disclosure, and execution requirement. Appropriate urgency for a destructive operation.

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 the destructive nature and lack of annotations/output schema, the description adequately covers safety-critical aspects (permanence, confirmation). Could be improved by mentioning cascading delete behavior or relationships to sibling tools, but sufficient for correct invocation.

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 has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both 'id' and 'confirm'. The description adds procedural emphasis ('You must pass confirm: true to execute') that reinforces the execution requirement beyond the schema's static definition, adding invocation context.

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?

Description clearly states the specific action ('Permanently deletes') and resource ('work order'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like get_order (read), update_order (modify), and create_order (create) through explicit destructive language.

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 prerequisite guidance (confirm:true required) and warns about permanence, implying cautious usage. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use update_order versus delete_order, or when deletion should be avoided in favor of other lifecycle operations.

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