delete_hitl

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that deletion is actually an archive operation that sets status to archived, and explains the result that new confirmations cannot be created afterward. It also transparently documents auth requirements and the fact that start_login is not a valid access path.

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 succinct and front-loaded with the core action and consequence. The access note is somewhat verbose but earns its place because it prevents a common failure mode involving authentication. No redundant filler.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately covers the action, side effects, and access requirements. It could mention whether archiving is reversible or what the response contains, but the missing details are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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% and the only parameter 'id' is already documented as 'HITL config ID to delete.' The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the specific verb and resource: 'Delete (archive) a HITL config.' It further clarifies the semantics by saying 'Sets status to archived' and adds the key consequence that it cannot be used for new confirmations after deletion. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_hitl and get_hitl.

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 provides access prerequisites: needs a Proof account, set PROOF_API_KEY, and restart the server. It also explicitly says 'start_login does NOT open this tool,' which is an exclusion. However, it does not mention when to prefer delete_hitl over alternatives like update_hitl or how to reverse the operation.

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