brc_delete_cash_payment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels. It explains the destructive nature (delete), the required two-step confirmation process, the return of confirmation_required and payload preview on initial call, and the critical warning that preflight is not confirmation. It fully discloses the behavioral pattern.

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 a single paragraph that is concise and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds important information: deletion action, two-step process including draft display, and a warning. No wasted words.

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 tool is a delete operation with a confirmation pattern and no output schema, the description covers the essential process well. It explains the initial response and required next step. However, it could be more complete by mentioning potential error conditions or the behavior of the confirmDelete parameter, and by clarifying what happens on a successful delete.

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 high (75%) with descriptions for id, companyName, and confirmWrite. The description adds value by explaining the multi-step usage of confirmWrite but does not mention confirmDelete, which is in the schema with default false. This omission is a gap, keeping the score at baseline.

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 clearly states 'Deletes a BRC cash payment by id,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling delete tools by the resource name and the unique two-step confirmation process, which is not described in other sibling descriptions.

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?

Provides explicit step-by-step instructions for safe usage: first call without confirmWrite:true, show plain-English draft in chat, then retry with confirmWrite:true only after explicit user confirmation. Warns that preflight is not confirmation. However, it does not compare to alternatives like other delete tools or specify when not to use this tool.

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