Delete survey response

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnly=false, and idempotent=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the deletion is "Permanent," it requires `confirm_destructive_action=true` as a gate, and authentication uses the configured service account so no session key should be supplied. The auth note is real operational value the annotations do not convey.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action and its gate, followed by implementation/auth detail. Every clause 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?

Return values need not be explained since an output schema exists, and the description covers the destructive nature, the confirmation gate, and authentication behavior. It is nearly complete; only the absence of any failure/error context (e.g., what happens on a missing or already-deleted response) keeps it from a 5.

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 100%, so all four parameters (including survey_id, response_id, response_format, confirm_destructive_action) are already documented. The description restates the confirm flag requirement, which is already encoded as `const: true` in the schema, adding little beyond the structured data. Baseline 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 opening sentence gives a concrete verb+resource ("Permanently delete a response"), which is unambiguous and matches the tool title. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the many other delete siblings (delete_survey, delete_participants, delete_group, delete_question), so an agent must rely on the resource noun alone.

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 states the confirmation precondition but gives no when-to-use framing, no alternatives, and no warnings about when deletion is inappropriate (e.g., versus update_response or deactivating a survey). The agent gets a prerequisite, not guidance on when this tool is the right choice.

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