Delete A Response

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

The description explicitly states that the deletion 'cannot be undone' and 'permanently removes' the items, reinforcing the destructiveHint annotation. It also lists required parameters and the endpoint. This adds valuable context beyond the annotations, which already indicate destructiveness. No contradiction with annotations.

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 somewhat repetitive, stating the permanence twice and including API endpoint details that, while useful, could be more concise. It is not excessively long but contains minor redundancy. The structure could be improved by front-loading the core purpose and keeping related details separate.

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 deletion tool with no output schema, the description covers key points: permanence, required parameters, and endpoint. However, the inconsistency between 'Response' and 'Inspections' undermines clarity, and there is no mention of expected outcomes or error conditions. Given annotations compensate for some behavioral transparency, overall completeness is adequate but not exemplary.

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 input schema covers both parameters (company_id, id) with full descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description merely restates that these are required without adding new semantic meaning or clarifying parameter usage beyond the schema.

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 tool name and initial phrase 'Delete a Response' clearly indicate the action and resource. However, the description subsequently refers to deleting 'Inspections', which is inconsistent and could confuse the agent about the exact resource being manipulated. The verb+resource is clear but the inconsistency reduces precision.

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, such as when to use other delete tools or when not to delete a response. It only instructs to 'use this to permanently delete the specified Inspections' without contextualizing against siblings.

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