Delete Letter

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the 'permanently' qualifier, reinforcing the destructive nature, and adds the nuance about using update_letter for hiding. This provides context beyond what annotations alone convey, without contradicting them.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the alternative usage is presented concisely in the second. Every word contributes value.

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?

The tool is simple with a single parameter and no output schema. Annotations cover the destructive and idempotent profile, and the description fully explains purpose and usage guidance. Nothing important is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the id parameter is described as 'Letter id or slug'. The description repeats this phrase, adding no new meaning. With the schema fully covering the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('Playbook letter') and states the method (by id or slug). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly noting the alternative for hiding, so the purpose is unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly says to prefer update_letter with published: false when the intent is to hide, which serves as both a when-to-use and when-not-to-use guideline. This directly references a sibling tool, giving clear guidance on choosing between them.

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