delete_ingress_source

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the destructive cascade (deleting the source also removes its delivery log), the immediate post-delete state (endpoint returns 404), and an auth requirement (admin only). It omits whether the deletion is reversible or requires confirmation, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and side effect, then constraints. Every clause (cascade, 404, admin only, hosted only) earns its place with no filler.

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 delete with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the critical facts: what gets destroyed, the resulting endpoint state, and the access/hosting constraints. It is essentially complete, with only reversibility/confirmation behavior left unstated.

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 single source_id parameter is already documented. The description only restates 'by ID' and adds no format or type nuance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb (Delete) and resource (an inbound connector source and its delivery log), scoped by ID. This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling deletes like delete_webhook, delete_automation, and delete_recurrence, since the resource differs. An agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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 gives access constraints ('admin only', 'Hosted API only') that gate usage, which is useful, but it never states when to choose this over alternatives or when not to delete (e.g., active sources, dependent automations). Usage is implied from 'delete by ID' rather than explained.

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