Delete RFQ

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

The description explicitly states 'This cannot be undone' and 'Permanently removes', emphasizing the irreversible nature beyond what annotations (destructiveHint: true) provide. No contradiction with annotations; the description adds value by reinforcing permanence.

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 short but contains redundancy: 'This cannot be undone.' and 'This action cannot be undone.' are repetitive. It also includes API path details which, while informative, are not essential. Well-structured but could be more concise.

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 deletion tool with 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose, irreversibility, and required parameters. It mentions 'Commitments' but could clarify that RFQ stands for Request for Quote. Lacks prerequisites or cascading effects, but overall fairly 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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The description merely lists the required parameters without adding new meaning or context beyond the schema. 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 the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'RFQ' within a Project and Contract, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it interchangeably uses 'Commitments' which may cause slight confusion since RFQ is a specific type of commitment. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_rfq or update_rfq by its destructive nature.

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 says 'Use this to permanently delete the specified Commitments' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other deletion tools), nor does it mention when not to use it. It only lists required parameters, which is more about invocation than usage context.

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