delete_send

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

The annotations include destructiveHint=true, which covers the primary behavioral trait (destructiveness). The description adds that the deletion is permanent, but it does not disclose other potential behaviors like whether it has side effects on other sends, whether it requires the track to be unmuted, or whether it returns anything. Given the annotation, the description's minimal addition is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise—two lines covering the action and parameters. The information is front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence. It does not waste words, but it could be slightly more structured with a clearer separation between the description and parameter details.

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 simplicity (2 integer parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential calling contract. However, it lacks context on how to find the correct send_index, potential errors (e.g., out-of-range indices), and the broader use case. Since the description is the only source of behavioral guidance beyond annotations, a bit more contextual detail would make it more complete.

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 has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does define both parameters ('track_index' and 'send_index') and clarifies they are 0-based, which is useful. However, it does not explain what a 'send' is or how to obtain the indices, leaving some ambiguity that could be filled by referencing sibling tools like 'get_track_num_sends'.

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') and the resource ('a send from a track'), making the purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'create_send' or 'get_track_num_sends', which are easily differentiated by the verb and object, though it does not explicitly compare itself to them.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that deletes are irreversible or suggest when deletion might be appropriate (e.g., when cleaning up routing). The only context is the destructive annotation, which is implicit rather than explicit in the description.

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