delete_circle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full responsibility and does so well: it discloses that the operation is a soft delete, changes status to 'archived', removes the Circle from the default list, and remains recoverable. It also explains the API-key access requirement, preventing the agent from assuming permanent deletion or expecting start_login to work.

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 compact and front-loaded: primary behavior first, recoverability second, access prerequisite last. Every sentence contributes actionable information, with no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, this is complete: it explains what the operation does, its side effects, reversibility, and the required setup. An agent has enough information to decide when to call it and what to expect.

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 input schema already documents the single required parameter with a description ('Circle ID to archive') at 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond restating that the Circle is archived, so the baseline score of 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, resource, and effect: 'Archive a Circle (soft delete — sets status to archived)'. It also distinguishes this from a true delete by explicitly noting recoverability, which is especially helpful given the tool is named delete_circle.

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 clear context for use: archiving a Circle and how to later recover it via list_circles with status='archived'. It also provides a necessary access prerequisite and warns that start_login does not authorize this tool. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for hard deletion, but none appears among siblings.

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