Pay: offers delete

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description goes far beyond by enumerating exactly what is destroyed (codes + redemptions, history lost), what survives (already-granted trial bonuses), and what is left untouched (the Stripe coupon). This is precisely the extra context the annotation bar asks for.

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?

Front-loaded with the destructive action and its consequences, and every sentence carries information (scope, return values, coupon caveat, alternative, safety directive). The final caution sentence lightly overlaps the destructiveHint annotation, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers blast radius, preserved data, side effects on Stripe, return shape, and the safer alternative. Nothing an agent needs before invoking it is missing.

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% and the single id parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Offer id (guid). Find it with pay_offers_list.'). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Permanently delete an offer and all its codes + redemptions'. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling pay_offers_pause, so an agent can route correctly without opening other 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?

Gives both the exclusion and the alternative: 'To stop redemptions while keeping the history, use pay_offers_pause instead.' It also adds a procedural guideline ('check with the user before running it'), leaving nothing to inference about when this tool is appropriate.

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