keap_delete_opportunity

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Delete an opportunity' with no disclosure about irreversibility, associated data impact, permission requirements, or error states. This is insufficient for a mutation.

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?

At one sentence, it is concise, but it lacks any structural elements like warnings or contextual notes. It could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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 simple delete operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally complete, but it omits critical safety context (e.g., irreversible action, need for existing record). This is inadequate for a write tool without annotations.

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 100% with one parameter, and the parameter description in the schema is clear ('Opportunity ID to delete'). The tool description adds no further semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states 'Delete an opportunity', which is a specific verb (delete) and resource (opportunity). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like keap_create_opportunity, keap_update_opportunity, etc.

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, no prerequisites (e.g., opportunity must exist), and no mention of when not to use it. It simply states what it does.

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