Delete Custom Cost

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate destructive behavior. It adds value by explaining the consequence: removing the cost prevents skewing profit and ROAS reports. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action. Every word earns its place; no filler.

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 single-parameter delete tool with annotations, the description provides purpose, usage, and effect. It doesn't detail return values or permanent repercussions, but annotations and schema cover the essentials.

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?

The input schema covers the single parameter 'id' with a description stating it comes from hyros_get_custom_costs. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but with 100% schema coverage, baseline 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 opens with 'Delete a custom cost,' which is a specific verb+resource pair. The added rationale about stopping mistaken or open-ended recurring costs distinguishes this from sibling get/create/update operations.

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 sentence 'Use this to stop a mistaken or open-ended recurring cost from skewing profit and ROAS on every report' provides a concrete use case. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like hyros_update_custom_cost, but it implies when deletion is appropriate rather than editing.

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