delete_email_zone

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Delete' implies destructive action, but the description does not disclose whether the operation is irreversible, whether it cascades to associated entities, or if specific permissions are required. This lack of context is a significant gap, especially given the existence of an archive variant.

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 a single, short sentence ('Delete an email zone') that is perfectly front-loaded and contains zero redundant information. Every word is necessary, making it extremely concise without being verbose.

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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema, this description is under-specified. It does not explain the permanence of the deletion, how it relates to archiving, or any side effects (e.g., impacts on campaigns or billing). While the simple schema is clear, the lack of behavioral context leaves the agent with incomplete information to make a safe choice.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id', described as 'Email zone ID'. The tool description adds no additional detail about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Delete an email zone' uses a specific verb ('Delete') and a clear resource ('email zone'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'archive_email_zone' (which preserves the zone) and 'delete_zone' (for regular zones). This is a concise and unambiguous statement of the tool's purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'archive_email_zone' or 'delete_zone'. The description does not mention whether deletion is permanent, what prerequisites exist, or any consequences of deleting an email zone, leaving the agent without helpful usage context.

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