delete_working_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the confirm requirement as a behavioral prerequisite but does not state that deletion is irreversible, any permission needs, or what happens on success/failure. The confirm hint adds some value but leaves key side effects unstated.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the core purpose and a key constraint.

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 delete operation, the description covers the basics but omits important context such as irreversible effects, authorization requirements, or what happens after deletion. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but behavioral context is still incomplete.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It only mentions that confirm=true is required, but does not explain the meaning of deal_id or the purpose of confirm beyond being a flag. This is insufficient for a 2-parameter tool.

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 the resource (OTC working order), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_working_order or update_working_order. The specificity of 'OTC working order' narrows the scope.

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 implicitly indicates when to use the tool (for deleting OTC working orders) and mentions the confirm requirement. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as close_position or mention any scenarios where deletion is not appropriate.

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