Delete Commitment Change Order

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds value by reinforcing that deletion is permanent and cannot be undone, and specifies the tier configuration limitation. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the 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 includes redundant phrases like 'This cannot be undone' and 'permanently deletes' appearing twice. It could be more concise. However, it is front-loaded with the primary action and includes useful reference info (endpoint path).

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 destructive nature and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the core action and constraints (tier support). However, it omits potential details like required permissions or response format. Considering annotations cover safety, this is minimally 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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description only restates that project_id and id are required, adding no new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the specified Commitment Change Order,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'delete_commitment_change_order_batch' by targeting a single order. Additional context about supporting only 1 and 2 tier configurations further clarifies scope.

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 explicitly states that the endpoint only supports 1 and 2 tier change order configurations, advising against use for other configurations. It also notes the action is permanent. While it lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use beyond the tier constraint, it provides clear usage context.

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