Delete Email List

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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds only that the list must be existing but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether associated contacts are affected) or failure behavior. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter delete operation with annotations covering destructiveness and idempotence, the description and schema are largely sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It could mention response/side-effect expectations, but the low complexity makes the omission non-critical.

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 schema has 100% coverage: list_id is described as 'ID of the email list to delete.' The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific imperative verb ('Delete') and a concrete resource ('an existing email list from your SendGrid account'), so an agent immediately knows the operation. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like create_email_list, update_email_list, or list_email_lists.

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 imperative phrasing implies the obvious use case: delete a list. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, such as distinguishing deleting the list from removing contacts via remove_contact_from_lists or deleting individual contacts with delete_contact. The context is clear but the exclusions are left to inference.

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