Delete Contract Payment

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is destructive (destructiveHint: true) and not read-only. The description reinforces that the action cannot be undone, which is consistent. However, it does not add significant behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as authorization requirements or side effects on related data.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose but suffers from redundancies ('This cannot be undone' appears twice). It includes useful API reference information but could be more concise without losing clarity.

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 delete operation with no output schema, the description covers the basics: action, parameters, and permanence. However, it lacks details on idempotent behavior (despite annotations hinting at it), response expectations, and potential error scenarios, making it slightly incomplete for an agent to use without further information.

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?

All parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description merely restates the required parameters without adding any new semantic meaning or usage constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool deletes a specified Contract Payment, using the verb 'delete' and specifying the resource. However, it introduces confusion by referring to 'Commitments' instead of 'Contract Payment' in the second sentence, which may mislead an agent about the exact resource being operated on.

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 tells the agent to use this for permanent deletion but provides no guidance on when not to use it or what alternatives exist (e.g., if the action should be reversible or if a different resource should be deleted). No context for choosing this over other contract payment operations is given.

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