delete_gtt_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is a deletion, implying a destructive operation, but doesn't clarify if this is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what the response looks like. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero 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?

The description is a single, direct sentence that states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core function, earning full marks for conciseness.

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?

Given this is a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens upon deletion (e.g., confirmation, error handling), nor does it cover behavioral aspects like permissions or irreversible effects, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'trigger_id' clearly documented as 'The ID of the GTT order to delete'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, so it meets 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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and the target resource ('an existing GTT order'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cancel_order' or 'modify_gtt_order', which could also involve order modifications, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cancel_order' or 'modify_gtt_order', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing GTT order ID). It's a basic statement of function without contextual usage information.

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