delete_postal_code_target

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

No annotations are present, and the description only states the action without disclosing consequences such as irreversibility, cascading effects, required permissions, or impact on related entities. For a destructive operation, this leaves the agent without critical behavioral context. The description does not describe the response format or any caveats.

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, direct sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though it could be longer if needed to address behavioral details—but that is a content issue, not a structure issue.

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 one-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential action but lacks any context about usage scenarios, side effects, or return values. Given the absence of annotations, this is minimally viable but leaves gaps in an agent's understanding. The tool is simple enough that a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 fully documents the single required parameter `id` as the postal code target ID, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable given 100% schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (postal code target), distinguishing it from other delete operations for other entity types like geo targets or list targets. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool versus create, get, update, or list operations for postal code targets, nor does it mention alternatives or prerequisites. This leaves the agent without sufficient context for tool selection.

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