Pay: plans delete

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, but the description adds critical side-effect context: existing subscriptions and the Stripe product/price are left in place and keep billing. It also warns that the tool changes or deletes existing data and should be confirmed with the user first. This goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then consequences, then the reversible alternative, then the safety warning. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or vague 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?

For a destructive single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what is deleted, what is left intact, the reversible alternative, and the user-confirmation requirement. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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, including how to find it with pay_plans_list. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, 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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a subscription plan.' It further clarifies the effect ('so it can no longer be chosen'), distinguishing it from pay_plans_update and sibling tools. An agent can identify exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 an explicit alternative for a reversible hide: use `pay_plans_update` with inactive instead. It also adds a clear safety condition: 'check with the user before running it.' Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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