Delete an engagement

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that deletion is permanent, irreversible, and requires confirm=true, which are the critical destructive traits. It does not mention return values or side effects, but it covers the most important behavioral context for a destructive tool.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the irreversible deletion warning, states the required confirmation flag, then gives the alternative. Both bilingual halves earn their place without redundancy.

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 single-resource tool with full schema documentation, the description is complete enough. It covers the irreversible nature, the required confirmation, and the alternative archive path, leaving no critical decision unclear for the agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters, their defaults, and the meaning of confirm. The description reinforces the confirm requirement but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it permanently deletes an engagement. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from archive_engagement, so an agent can tell this tool apart from the closest sibling without opening schemas.

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 gives clear usage guidance by warning that the action cannot be undone and that confirm=true is mandatory. It explicitly directs the agent to archive_engagement when preservation is intended, providing a concrete alternative with a condition.

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