d365_plugin_image_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=false, and the description goes well beyond them: it explains the preview-then-write fingerprint requirement, metadata-gated concurrency, the unusual 404-based confirmation semantics, and that a failed write is not retried. That is exactly the extra context a destructive, non-idempotent tool needs.

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?

Three dense sentences with zero filler: identity and scope first, prerequisites second, boundaries third. Nothing is repeated from the schema and no sentence could be removed without losing a call-relevant fact.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical behavior (preview gating, fingerprint, confirmation, scope limits). It leaves implicit where the fingerprint comes from (a dry-run of this same tool) and says nothing about what the preview returns, which is the one remaining gap.

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 80% and the individual parameters (dry_run, if_match, expected_fingerprint, allow_unprotected_update) already carry their own descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the fingerprint and exact-ID constraints but adds no new detail about the concurrency opt-in or alias pairs.

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?

States a specific verb (delete) and resource (an unmanaged customizable plugin image) qualified by 'by exact ID', which is precise enough to separate it from the sibling d365_plugin_image_register, d365_plugin_image_update and d365_plugin_images_query tools. The 'Preview/delete' framing also flags the dual dry-run/live mode up front.

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?

Gives clear operational conditions: preview first, supply the fingerprint from that preview, and confirm deletion via a subsequent 404. It also draws an explicit boundary ('Does not delete its parent step or retry a write'), though it never names which sibling to use for parent-step removal or for a plain image lookup.

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