Delete Sender Identity

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'verified' qualifier, which clarifies the resource scope, but does not disclose irreversibility, permissions, or downstream effects. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to the meaning, and the key action is front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter deletion tool with destructive and idempotent annotations, the description covers the essential behavior. An output schema is not present, but for a delete action the return value is usually not critical. The only minor gap is lack of explicit usage guidance, but this is a simple tool.

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%, and the sender_id parameter is already described as 'ID of the sender identity to delete'. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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 verb ('Delete') and a concrete resource ('verified sender identity'), making the action unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes this tool from other delete_* siblings like delete_email_list or delete_template.

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 usage context is implied: use this when a verified sender identity needs to be removed. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it relates to create_sender or list_senders, so the agent must infer the routing.

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