Delete Instances Partner Fees By Id

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description needn't repeat them. However, it adds no context at all about what is destroyed, whether the removal is recoverable, or side effects on related records, which is what this dimension rewards. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

"Remove Partner Fee" is front-loaded with zero waste, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. It is a two-word phrase that provides no structure or actionable detail.

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, open-world delete with no output schema and two undocumented required parameters, the description is far too thin. Annotations carry the safety flags, but the agent still lacks confirmation of what the deletion affects or what a successful response looks like.

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 only 33% (only Idempotency-Key is documented; id and instance_id have examples and length bounds but no descriptions). With low coverage the description must compensate, and it says nothing about what id or instance_id refer to or their formats.

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?

"Remove Partner Fee" states a verb and resource, so an agent can infer a deletion of a partner-fee record. But it merely restates the tool name/title and adds no scope, and nothing distinguishes it from the sibling GetV1InstancesPartnerFees / PostV1InstancesPartnerFees / GetV1InstancesPartnerFeesById beyond the name itself.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or when not to call it. The agent must infer that this is the destructive path for an existing partner fee rather than, say, the create endpoint.

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