delete_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. For a deletion tool, it doesn't state whether deletion is reversible, whether related records (people, tags, segments) are cascade-deleted, whether there are any dependencies that block deletion, or what happens to associated data. The term 'delete' implies irreversibility but offers no specifics about scope or side effects.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It's appropriately short for a simple single-parameter deletion tool, though it could arguably do slightly more in the same space.

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?

This is a destructive operation (delete) with no annotations and no output schema. Despite having only one simple parameter, the description provides no detail on behavioral side effects, return values, or failure conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, more behavioral context is needed.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter (id), and the schema already describes it as 'The ID of the list to delete.' The description adds essentially nothing beyond what the schema provides — it doesn't explain where to obtain the ID, whether it accepts objects/admin IDs vs regular list IDs, or format expectations. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers the sole parameter fully.

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 'Delete a list/segment' states the verb (delete) and resource (list/segment), which is clear for basic purposes. However, it doesn't distinguish whether this is a soft or hard delete, and while sibling delete_* tools exist, the description is functionally identical to them in pattern, offering no differentiation beyond the resource name.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., must the list be empty first?), consequences (e.g., does deleting a list remove its members from campaigns?), or when one might prefer using update_list instead. Zero context about when NOT to use it.

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