delete_hitl

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: deletion is a soft archive that sets status to archived, and it has a downstream consequence (no new confirmations). It also discloses an authentication prerequisite (Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY, restart the server) and explicitly rules out start_login as a path to enabling this tool.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in one dense sentence, with the access prerequisite separated into its own block so it does not obscure the purpose. Slightly verbose in the access paragraph, but every line carries actionable information.

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 and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers purpose, soft-delete semantics, downstream impact, and auth gating. It leaves minor gaps (fate of in-flight confirmations, reversibility/unarchive path) but is sufficient to call correctly.

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, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'id'. The description adds no format, source, or lookup guidance for the ID beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline expectation here.

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 (delete a HITL config) and immediately clarifies the semantics of 'delete' as archive. This distinguishes it from the similarly-named delete_hitl_keys sibling as well as from create_hitl/update_hitl, since the agent knows exactly which resource and operation is involved.

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?

Usage is implied (you delete an existing HITL config) and the description notes the post-deletion constraint ('cannot be used for new confirmations'), but it never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as delete_hitl_keys or update_hitl, nor any precondition for the target config. The ACCESS note is a prerequisite, not usage routing.

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