dnc_delete_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the key behavioral nuance: the entry is 'soft-expired (audit-preserved), not hard-deleted.' It also notes that platform-managed entries are immutable, which sets expectations about authorization. It does not describe error cases or return value, but the output schema likely covers the latter.

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 and well-structured, with a clear opening statement followed by constraints and an Args block. Every sentence adds information without redundancy, and key details are front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description covers the essential context: action, eligibility, behavior, and parameter provenance. It fully equips an agent to decide when and how to invoke the 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?

The schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining that entry_id is 'ID returned by dnc_list_entries or dnc_add_entry,' adding source context beyond the bare schema. This is sufficient for a single simple string parameter.

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 uses the specific verb 'Soft-expire' with a clear object 'org_upload DNC entry,' immediately conveying the tool's action and scope. It also distinguishes this from siblings by noting it only applies to org_upload entries, not platform-managed ones.

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 explicitly states when the tool applies ('Only org_upload entries can be removed') and when it does not ('Platform-managed entries are immutable to org admins'), providing clear exclusions. However, it does not mention an alternative tool for platform-managed entries, but that is acceptable since none appears available.

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