Delete Markups

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

The description aligns with annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) and explicitly states 'permanently delete', 'cannot be undone', reinforcing the destructive behavior. No contradictions 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 repeats 'This cannot be undone' twice, making it slightly redundant. It could be more concise without losing information. Structure is functional but could be improved.

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 tool is a delete operation with clear annotations (destructiveHint) and no output schema, the description adequately covers essential context: irreversibility, required parameters, and API endpoint. Missing details like success/failure response are compensated by the tool's simplicity and annotations.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description only lists required parameters without adding new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters adequately.

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 action (deletes markups), the target resources (company, project, document), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_a_new_markup' or 'modify_markups'. It uses specific verbs and resource identification.

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 clear usage guidance: 'Use this to permanently delete...' and lists required parameters. It emphasizes irreversibility but does not explicitly mention when not to use or offer alternatives. Nonetheless, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide its appropriateness.

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