Delete Payment Events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Delete payment events' and the filter requirement, but does not mention consequences such as irreversibility, scope of deletion, or any side effects. The lack of warning about permanent deletion or impact leaves a significant transparency gap for a destructive operation.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that immediately front-load the core action ('Delete payment events') followed by essential filtering details. Every sentence contributes necessary information without fluff or repetition, making it highly efficient.

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?

The description provides enough information for basic invocation: what to delete and how to filter. However, given the lack of annotations and absence of an output schema, it leaves out important context such as whether deletion is permanent, what response to expect, or any error conditions. It is a minimally complete description but lacks depth for a destructive tool.

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% with descriptions for each parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters into logical filters (transaction ID, visitor ID, date range) and explicitly stating that at least one must be provided, which is not encoded in the schema's required field. This extra constraint enhances understanding beyond the structured schema.

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 'Delete payment events', specifying the exact verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by mentioning filtering options for transaction ID, visitor ID, and date range, which directly map to the schema. This clarity enables an agent to immediately understand what the tool does and how it differs from getter or tracking tools.

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 provides explicit usage context by stating the required filters and the rule 'At least one filter must be provided.' This gives clear direction on when to use the tool and what inputs are necessary, though it does not mention alternatives or exclusions. The guidance is sufficient for an agent to select this tool for deleting specific payment events.

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