delete_envelope

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the constraint on envelope states (draft only), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention permissions, side effects (e.g., irreversible deletion), or response format, leaving gaps for a destructive operation.

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 concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second adds a critical constraint. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is mostly complete for a simple deletion tool with one parameter. It covers the key behavioral constraint, but lacks details on permissions or response, leaving minor gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents the 'envelopeId' parameter as a UUID. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high 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 resource ('a draft envelope'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'cancel_envelope' or 'discard_envelope' by specifying the envelope state (draft vs. sent/completed). It provides specific verb+resource+scope.

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?

It explicitly states when to use ('Delete a draft envelope') and when not to use ('Cannot delete sent/completed envelopes'), providing clear context and exclusions without naming alternatives, which is sufficient for explicit guidance.

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