Delete Luma ticket type

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds useful behavioral context: Luma may refuse deletion when tickets have been sold or when this is the last visible ticket type. It also clarifies that preview is non-mutating and verifies ownership, which helps the agent anticipate real-world outcomes.

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 with no filler: the first front-loads the action, the second describes the preview behavior, and the third gives deletion caveats. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The definition covers the core workflow—preview before deletion, ownership verification, and refusal conditions—and the confirmed parameter is documented in the schema. It does not describe the response format, but there is no output schema and the preview's 'shows its exact settings' gives a reasonable expectation.

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 only 33% with both ID parameters undocumented, but the description partially compensates by stating the ticket type 'belongs to the event' and that preview shows 'exact settings'. It does not explain how to obtain or format event_id and event_ticket_type_id, leaving the IDs to be inferred from their names.

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 opens with 'Preview or delete one ticket type', giving a specific action plus a precise resource, and immediately explains the tool's dual behavior. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_ticket_types, get_ticket_type, create_ticket_type, and update_ticket_type because it centers on deletion with an optional preview.

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 implies usage: a preview verifies event ownership and settings, and deletion may be refused under certain conditions. However, it never explicitly contrasts this tool with get_ticket_type or list_ticket_types for pure inspection, nor states when not to use it.

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