x_api_delete_activity_subscription

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden and succeeds. It explicitly labels the operation as 'Risk: mutating, high-risk,' states required bearer token, explains environment-selection behavior, provides expected response shape, common failure conditions, and a safety warning to validate scope and authorizationKey. This goes beyond basic disclosure.

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 well-structured with labeled sections and front-loaded purpose. It is verbose but each section adds value. Minor redundancy: 'Deletes X activity subscription' appears in both the opening and 'Use when' section, wasting a sentence.

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 complex X API delete operation with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a thorough profile: purpose, exclusions, risk, permissions, environment selection, param constraints, response shape, failure modes, prerequisite/follow-up tools, safety warning, and example. It is effectively complete, though not all optional params are individually explained.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the environment-selection behavior for scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, and credentialKey, and lists subscription_id as path/required. However, authorizationKey and preferredAuthType are not described, and 'unknown' for format is unhelpful. The example demonstrates a valid invocation.

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 verb and resource: 'Deletes X activity subscription.' However, it is essentially tautological with the tool name and does not distinguish from sibling tools like x_api_delete_activity_subscriptions_by_ids or x_api_delete_account_activity_subscription. The 'Use when' line repeats the same sentence, adding no differentiation.

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 includes a 'Do not use when' section that advises against using when auth/config tools are needed or when exploring, and recommends alternative tools (x_schema_discovery, x_query_suggestion). It also lists prerequisite and follow-up tools. However, it does not explicitly compare with deletion siblings (e.g., batch vs single), so the guidance is context-rich but not fully alternative-aware.

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