Delete email activity

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: a specific failure mode with its HTTP status (409 Conflict for SalesSuite-sent activities). It stops short of saying whether deletion is permanent or what a successful response contains.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and the failure constraint second; nothing is padded. The opening sentence largely restates the tool title, which is minor redundancy but keeps the description scannable.

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 whose annotations already flag destructiveness and idempotency, the description covers the action, the target, and the one non-obvious failure case. Missing only peripheral details such as success return shape or permission requirements, and there is no output schema to defer to.

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 parameter already documents itself as "The unique ID of the email activity" with a UUID format and pattern. The description only restates that the ID is the targeting key, adding no format or sourcing detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Delete email activity") and repeats the identifier used to target it ("by `emailActivityId`"). The purpose is unambiguous and implicitly distinguishes it from `get_email_activity` and `list_email_activities`, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 gives one concrete usage boundary: activities sent by SalesSuite cannot be deleted and return 409 Conflict, which tells the agent when the call will fail. It does not say when to prefer this over alternatives or what prerequisites (permissions, ownership) must hold, so guidance is implied rather than complete.

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