Delete Rfq

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely supplied. The description's "LIVE ACCOUNT ACTION" and "may affect real funds or account state" restate that destructive framing rather than adding new information such as what happens to outstanding quotes on the RFQ or whether closing is reversible.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded, and the critical warning placed early. The second sentence is somewhat boilerplate, but nothing is padded or redundant enough to hurt selection.

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?

This is a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with an undocumented required identifier and no output schema. The description omits what state the RFQ must be in, what happens to linked quotes or trades, and what a successful response confirms — significant gaps for a fund-affecting operation.

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 0% for the single required parameter rfqId, and the description says nothing about it — no format, no source, no indication of whether it refers to the RFQ's own identifier versus a quote or user id. Unlike the zero-parameter baseline, here the description needed to compensate and does not.

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?

"Closes an open RFQ" gives a specific verb and resource, but it does not reconcile the mismatch with the tool name (delete_rfq), nor does it distinguish the operation from adjacent RFQ lifecycle tools such as create_rfq, accept_quote, or confirm_quote. An agent can infer the target object but must guess at the exact semantics of 'close' versus 'delete'.

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 guidance on when this should be called, what preconditions must hold (e.g., the RFQ must still be open), or which sibling to use instead. The only usage-adjacent content is a generic live-account warning, which is not a when-to-use rule.

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