delete_appeal

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

The description aligns with annotations (destructiveHint true, idempotentHint true), confirming the operation is a deletion. However, it adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide, such as cascade effects or irreversibility.

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?

A single sentence of 5 words, perfectly concise. Every element is necessary and front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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?

Given the destructive nature (destructiveHint true) and lack of output schema, the description omits important contextual details like whether deletion is permanent, what effects are cascaded, or how to handle errors (e.g., non-existent ID).

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only adds 'by ID', which is minimally informative. It does not explain what the ID represents, where to obtain it, or any constraints (e.g., format, range).

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 explicitly states 'Delete an appeal by ID', using a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('appeal') with a clear identifier. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_appeal' or 'update_appeal'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, safety considerations, or contrast with siblings like 'delete_appeal_request'.

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