delete_usage_limit

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior, and the description adds useful nuance: the policy stops enforcing its budget but remains available through archived-status reads. This clarifies that the operation is an archival action with retained history, going beyond the raw destructiveHint annotation.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the primary action and then explains the consequential behavior. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundant or filler content.

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 one-parameter destructive operation with an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers what the tool does, what happens to the policy, and what remains accessible afterward. Nothing necessary for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, and the only parameter 'id' is already well-described as 'Usage-limit policy UUID to archive'. The tool description repeats 'by id' but does not add additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Archive', and a specific resource, 'cumulative usage-limit policy by id', making the tool's action clear. It also distinguishes itself from related destructive tools like delete_rate_limit by clarifying that this is an archive operation, not a hard deletion.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you want to stop a usage-limit policy from enforcing its budget while retaining its historical record. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the retention behavior provides clear context.

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