Delete communication

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value by emphasizing 'Permanently' (irreversibility) and offering the non-destructive archiving path, though it doesn't discuss auth or recovery.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the destructive action and immediately followed by the safer alternative in a parenthetical. Zero waste.

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 destructive single-entity delete with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description conveys irreversibility and the alternative path. It omits the confirm-gate context, which the schema partially carries, so it's near-complete rather than exhaustive.

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 coverage is 50%: confirm is documented in the schema, communicationId is not. The description's 'maintenance report/conversation' wording clarifies what the id refers to, partially compensating, but adds no format or constraint detail. 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?

Specific verb (delete) + resource (maintenance report/conversation), with 'Permanently' clarifying the operation's nature. It also names the sibling alternative update_communication, so the agent can distinguish it from other communication tools without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to update_communication with archived:true when history should be kept, which is a genuine when-to-use alternative. It stops short of stating prerequisites (e.g. that confirm must be true) or exclusions, so it's clear context rather than a full decision rule.

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