Delete package

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description adds concrete failure semantics (422 when users are still assigned, 403 for non-reseller accounts) and an environment-configuration blocker (MXROUTE_USERNAME form). It also spells out the required human confirmation, which annotations cannot convey.

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 tight sentences: the action and its main failure mode come first, then eligibility constraints, then the safety instruction. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the destructive nature, precondition failures, account-type eligibility, and environment gating. An agent has everything needed to decide whether calling is safe and legal.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema documenting the name pattern and allowed characters. The description adds no format, syntax, or naming guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Deletes a package') and immediately adds the 422 precondition when users remain assigned. The 'package' resource cleanly distinguishes it from the other delete_* siblings such as delete_domain, delete_email_account, and delete_forwarder.

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 explicit when-not conditions: reseller accounts only, regular accounts refused (403), and unavailable while MXROUTE_USERNAME is in `reseller|user` form, plus a 'confirm before calling' instruction. No alternative tool (e.g., update_package) is named for modifying rather than removing a package, so it falls just short of a 5.

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