LessonTariffsDelete

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

The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: it explicitly warns that the operation is destructive, states what is removed ('the tariff'), and discloses the client-side approval requirement. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description enriches that with concrete behavioral expectations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the operation is stated first, followed by a clear warning. Every sentence earns its place, and the destructive warning is prominent.

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 simple single-parameter delete operation, the description covers the core requirement: the action, the destructive nature, and the approval step. It does not mention success/error behavior, but the annotations and schema cover enough for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds no semantic meaning for lessonTariffId beyond the schema's weak 'integer (required)' text; it does not explain how to identify the tariff or where the ID comes from.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Delete a lesson tariff.' It is distinct from direct sibling deletion tools like LessonTariffsDeleteLessonPackage and LessonTariffsDeleteTariffDuration by naming the tariff itself, though it does not explicitly call out those distinctions.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools that also delete related lesson-tariff entities (e.g., LessonTariffsDeleteLessonPackage). The destructive warning is relevant but does not help an agent choose between alternatives.

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