LessonTariffsDeleteLessonPackage

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it warns that the operation is destructive, explicitly states that it removes the lesson package, and notes that client-side approval is required. This goes beyond the raw destructiveHint and readOnlyHint flags.

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 every sentence earns its place: the first states the action and target, the second adds a critical safety warning and approval requirement. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema information.

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 straightforward delete operation with all three required parameters being IDs, the description and annotations together provide sufficient context. It covers destructive behavior and approval requirements, and no output schema is needed for a typical delete response. Minor missing details about side effects would be unnecessary for this simple tool.

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%, but the parameter descriptions are purely tautological ('integer (required)'). The tool description does not explain the meaning or relationships of the three IDs, although for a delete-by-ID operation the names are largely self-explanatory. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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'), a clear resource ('lesson package attached to a tariff'), and immediately distinguishes this action from sibling tools like deleting a tariff or deleting a tariff duration. There is no ambiguity about what operation will be performed.

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 implies when this tool is relevant by specifying that it deletes a lesson package attached to a tariff, which contrasts with related tariff deletion tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state conditions for choosing another tool, leaving usage guidance mostly inferred.

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