delete_installment_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a cancellation/deletion (implying a destructive mutation) and mentions verifying the response structure, but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if the deletion is reversible, what permissions or authentication are required, any rate limits, side effects (e.g., impact on related payments), or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the primary action ('Cancel/Delete an existing installment plan.') and following with a secondary purpose. There is no wasted text, but the second sentence about verifying response structure feels somewhat disconnected and could be integrated more smoothly. Overall, it's efficient but not perfectly structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a destructive mutation with 2 parameters, 50% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, full parameter meanings, output expectations, and usage context. The mention of response structure verification is insufficient to cover these gaps, making it inadequate for safe and effective agent use.

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 50% (only 'plan_id' has a description). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain the 'address' parameter or provide additional context for 'plan_id'. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for undocumented parameters, resulting in minimal added value. The baseline is adjusted downward due to the coverage gap, but the description doesn't worsen it.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Cancel/Delete') and identifies the resource ('an existing installment plan'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'edit_installment_plan' and 'get_installment_plan' by focusing on removal rather than modification or retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'create_installment' is for creation, but this is implied).

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 minimal guidance: it states to use this tool for cancellation/deletion, but offers no context on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when not to delete, prerequisites like plan status). It mentions verifying the cancellation response structure, which hints at a testing use case, but this is vague and doesn't clarify operational scenarios. No explicit when/when-not or alternative tool references are included.

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