delete_circle

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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: the operation is a soft, recoverable archive even though destructiveHint=true, and it documents the auth prerequisite (Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY, restart required, start_login does NOT unlock this tool). This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its soft-delete semantics, then the recovery path, then the access caveat. Every sentence earns its place, though the access block is slightly verbose for a description field.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers the observable result (removal from default listing), the recovery mechanism, and the authentication barrier. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so the single id parameter is already documented with its pattern. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline-3 case for a one-param 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Archive a Circle") and immediately disambiguates the implementation: a soft delete that sets status to archived. An agent can distinguish it from hard-delete siblings like delete_profile or delete_domain without opening any schema.

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?

Explains the operational consequence (stops appearing in the default list) and the recovery path (list_circles with status="archived"), plus an explicit access precondition. It does not explicitly compare against update_circle, but the soft-delete framing is enough context to select correctly.

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