Delete a SIMULATED (paper) bet

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes well beyond them: it warns the action 'rewrites simulated history' and enumerates the downstream effects on realized P&L, ROI, hit rate and Brier, and clarifies no real money is involved. That is exactly the consequence-level context an agent needs before an irreversible write and cannot get from the annotation block.

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 destructive warning and the alternative route are front-loaded and each sentence does work. The trailing 'Args' block restates the schema's id description, which is mild redundancy rather than bloat, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description already covers scope, permitted statuses, side effects, and the safer sibling alternative. Nothing needed to invoke this destructive tool correctly is missing.

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%, so baselines sit at 3; the description only repeats that id comes from polymarket_paper_status, which the schema already states, and never mentions the response_format parameter. It adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the structured fields.

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 first sentence states a specific verb ('Permanently remove') and a precise scope ('one bet from the local paper-trading ledger'), and the status clause ('any status: open, won, lost, closed') bounds it. It is clearly distinguishable from polymarket_paper_close and polymarket_paper_reset without opening any schema.

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?

It gives an explicit when-not and names the alternative: 'To stop tracking a bet while keeping an honest record, use polymarket_paper_close instead.' Combined with 'Works on any status,' the agent has both the selection condition and the sibling route spelled out.

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