ecp_notifications_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Irreversible,' which is useful for a destructive operation, but it does not mention side effects, success/failure responses, idempotency, or authentication needs. This is minimal coverage for a delete tool.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The verb is front-loaded, and the critical warning about irreversibility is included. Every word earns its place, achieving excellent 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 destructive operation with a required confirmation parameter and no output schema, this description is starkly incomplete. It does not explain the confirm parameter, how to obtain a valid id, error handling, or what makes this different from clearing all notifications. The irreversibility note helps but does not compensate for missing operational context.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It implies that 'id' identifies the notification via 'one notification,' but it does not explicitly map parameters, and crucially it omits the 'confirm' parameter's role as a required confirmation flag. This leaves the agent with significant ambiguity.

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 clearly states the action (Delete) and resource (one notification), which is specific and distinct from siblings like ecp_notifications_list or ecp_notifications_clear_all. It is not a tautology and provides enough to understand the core purpose.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ecp_notifications_clear_all or ecp_notifications_mark_read. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an id from list) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this is appropriate.

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