delete_recipient

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

The description adds 'deactivate' which clarifies that the destructive operation may be a soft delete rather than a permanent removal, providing nuance beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true). It doesn't detail side effects or reversibility, but the deactivation clarification is valuable.

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 sentence of five words: 'Delete (deactivate) a recipient account'. It is front-loaded with the action and contains zero redundant content.

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 simple single-parameter delete tool with annotations covering destructive and idempotent behavior, the description is largely complete. The 'deactivate' nuance adds useful context, though it omits any mention of return values or post-deletion effects, which is acceptable given the lack of an output schema.

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 schema already documents accountId with 'Recipient account ID' (100% coverage), and the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full burden.

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 action 'Delete (deactivate)' and the resource 'recipient account', using a specific verb and noun. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_recipient, get_recipient, and list_recipients.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage is implied by the operation name and sibling context, but there's no direct guidance.

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