Delete Punch Item

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Permanently removes the punch item. This cannot be undone, and a repeat call returns 404.' It also explains error payload structure and common status codes, which complements the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations without contradicting them.

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 dense but structured, covering action, prerequisites, effects, error handling, required params, and API reference. There is slight redundancy between the initial confirmation advice and the later id-resolution sentence, but overall it is efficient and well-organized.

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 delete tool, the description addresses prerequisites (id resolution), irreversibility, repeat-call behavior, and permission-related errors. It lacks an explicit success response format, but that is not critical given the absence of an output schema and the richness of 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?

The schema covers both parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating that 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first,' which gives semantic guidance beyond the schema's simple 'ID of the Punch Item' explanation.

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 'Delete a specific Punch Item,' which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_punch_items and show_punch_item. It also includes the API endpoint, reinforcing the delete 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?

It explicitly instructs to 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling,' providing a clear prerequisite and when-not. It also outlines common error scenarios (401, 403, 404) that help the agent decide when to use the tool based on context, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools.

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