engagement_details_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't disclose critical behaviors like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or returns confirmation. This is inadequate for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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's complexity (destructive deletion), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral traits, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate safely and effectively.

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 description mentions no parameters, but schema coverage is 0% with 1 required parameter (engagementId). The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (just the parameter name). However, with only 1 parameter, the baseline is 4, but it's reduced to 3 because the description fails to explain what 'engagementId' represents or its format.

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 an engagement' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (engagement), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't specify what an 'engagement' is in this context or distinguish it from similar deletion tools like 'meetings_delete' or 'crm_delete_object' in the sibling list, making it somewhat vague.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an engagement ID), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'engagement_details_get' or batch deletion tools, leaving the agent 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.