delete_followup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it declares the operation destructive, non-reversible from this tool, and notes the followup vanishes from the ticket's audit trail — non-obvious consequence an agent would otherwise assume away.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in one short sentence, then a clearly marked ATTENTION block for the irreversible warning and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

No annotations or output schema exist, so the description must supply behavior — and it covers destructiveness, irreversibility, and routing. Only permission/auth requirements and the exact post-delete state of the ticket are unstated, which is a small residual gap for a mutation tool.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter followup_id is never explained in the description. Its integer id nature is inferable from the name, so the gap is minor, but the description adds nothing about format or scope.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Supprime un suivi'), naming exactly what is deleted. Combined with the alternatives it names (update_followup, add_followup), an agent can distinguish it from every sibling without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly restricts use to followups published by mistake (wrong ticket, duplicate) and routes two distinct correct alternatives: update_followup for content fixes and add_followup for qualifying a conclusion. When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and alternatives are all present.

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