PupilsDelete

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the pupil is permanently removed, client-side approval is required, and upstream returns HTTP 400 if class links remain. No contradiction exists.

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 main action is front-loaded and the prerequisite, error behavior, and approval warning are packed into a few short sentences. It loses one point because 'WARNING: Destructive: removes the pupil' somewhat redundantly restates both the opening sentence and the destructiveHint annotation.

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 with no output schema, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: what it does, the required precondition, which sibling tools to use first, the error to expect, and the approval requirement.

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% because pupilId has a description ('integer (optional)'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add explicit parameter semantics, but the property name plus 'Delete a pupil' makes the intended use of pupilId clear enough.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Delete a pupil.' It also distinguishes this operation from related actions by naming GroupClassPupilsDelete and IndividualClassesDelete as the unlink steps, making the tool's unique responsibility obvious.

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 explicitly states when deletion is possible: only after the pupil is unlinked from all classes. It names the exact alternative tools to use for unlinking and warns about the HTTP 400 failure mode, giving the agent concrete sequencing guidance.

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