delete_deposit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the soft-delete (recoverable) semantics, the DRAFT-only precondition, the failure mode for posted deposits, and a user-confirmation requirement. It omits permission requirements and what happens to records linked to the deposit.

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 short sentences, each carrying a distinct piece of information: action, alternative, and the confirmation requirement. Front-loaded with the core action and no filler.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential risks: scope limit, alternative path, and user confirmation. Only permission/error behavior is left unstated, which is a minor gap.

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?

One parameter at 100% schema coverage; the schema already says 'Deposit ID to delete (DRAFT only)'. The description's DRAFT restriction is identical to what the schema states, so it adds no format, type, or lookup detail beyond structured data.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Soft-delete a DRAFT deposit') plus the state restriction that defines it. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling void_deposit, which the description explicitly routes posted deposits to.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use (DRAFT deposits) and when-not (posted deposits must be voided instead), which maps onto the sibling void_deposit. It stops just short of naming that tool explicitly, so the routing requires a small inference.

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