Delete A Manual Forecast Line Item

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces permanence with 'This cannot be undone' and 'Permanently removes,' adding behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 front-loads the purpose but repeats 'This cannot be undone' twice and includes the full API endpoint URL, which is unnecessary for tool selection. It could be more concise by omitting redundant statements and the endpoint detail.

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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description does not explain what the response looks like (e.g., success indication). It mentions 'Budget records' but does not clarify if the action returns data or just status. The parameter conflict further reduces completeness. For a destructive action, more guidance on confirmation or idempotency would help.

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 descriptions for all parameters. The description adds 'Required parameters: project_id, id,' which duplicates schema required array. It also includes a confusing note: 'NOTE - budget line item id or wbs code id is required'—contradicting the schema where those are optional. This misleads the agent about parameter necessity without clarifying the relationship.

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 'Delete a manual forecast line item for a budget line item' using a specific verb and resource. It also mentions 'permanently delete the specified Budget records,' which clarifies the scope. While there are many delete tools, this one is distinctly tied to manual forecast line items, aiding differentiation.

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 (e.g., delete_budget_line_item or delete_a_budgeted_production_quantity). It states 'Use this to permanently delete...' but lacks exclusions or context on when not to use it. No alternatives are mentioned.

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