Delete Contract Payment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds crucial context: 'Permanently removes the contract payment. This cannot be undone, and a repeat call returns 404.' It also enumerates likely error statuses (401, 403, 404) and their meanings, providing significant behavioral insight beyond the structured hints.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: it starts with the core action, then prerequisites, consequences, error behavior, and ends with API reference. Every sentence earns its place, providing information without unnecessary filler.

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 destructive operation, the description covers all key aspects: prerequisites (resolve id), permanence, idempotency (404 on repeat), error handling, required parameters, and the API endpoint. No output schema exists, but for a delete tool, the lack of return-value documentation is acceptable. The description is complete for decision-making.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that 'id must identify an existing parent record' and by listing the required parameters explicitly. While the schema already documents each parameter, the contextual hint about resolving the id enhances semantic understanding.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Deletes a specified Contract Payment.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_contract_payments, create_contract_payment, show_contract_payment, and update_contract_payment. The title and tool name reinforce the same action.

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 explicit guidance on prerequisites: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and 'resolve it with the matching list tool first.' This tells the agent when to use the tool (after resolving the id) but does not mention alternative tools or exclusions, stopping short of a 5.

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