entitlements_delete_test

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 critical behavioral details: irreversible deletion, the ConfirmRequired gate, the need for __confirm:true, and the MCP_DRY_RUN=false prerequisite. This greatly exceeds annotation coverage.

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?

Three clearly labeled lines (Purpose, Returns, Security) front-load the essential information. Every sentence is informative and there is no fluff.

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 delete tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers purpose, safety, confirmation, and return shape. The security details are particularly complete, making the tool's behavior predictable.

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% for parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the __confirm parameter's role and its interaction with MCP_DRY_RUN, which goes beyond the schema's per-parameter text.

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 the specific verb 'Delete' and identifies the exact resource 'test entitlement (dev tool)'. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like entitlements_consume or entitlements_create_test.

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 dev tool tag and delete vs. consume distinction provide clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls slightly short of full guidance.

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