bw_delete_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It reveals the operation is asynchronous, requires confirmation via bw_list_requests, explains that activation requests are rolled back (which undoes later activations and removes the load request underneath), and states the return value (which requests were rolled back vs. deleted). This goes well beyond a simple 'deletes requests' and prepares the agent for side effects and follow-up actions.

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 information-dense but well structured: it leads with the core action, then clarifies scope and exceptions, explains the two request types, gives the all_requests use case, states asynchronicity, and ends with the return value. Every sentence serves a purpose and there is no fluff. The length is justified by the complexity of the tool, and the front-loading makes the intent immediately clear.

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 there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains what the call returns and how to confirm success. It also covers the two operational modes (single request vs. all_requests), the storage code distinction, and the rollback behavior – all essential for correct invocation. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to call this tool, and what to expect.

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 already documents all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds extra meaning beyond the schema: it explains that storage codes AT/AX mark activation requests (which are rolled back rather than deleted), that all_requests=true with target clears a provider completely, and that target is required with all_requests but only optional with request_tsn. These clarifications help the agent choose parameter values correctly, so a 4 is warranted.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Delete load requests from an InfoProvider' and immediately clarifies it removes both the data and the request-management entry. It explicitly contrasts itself with selective deletion by condition, which leaves the request intact – a differentiating detail that lets an agent tell it apart from any sibling deletion tool without inspecting 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?

The description states the key precondition (switching a DTP from delta to full extraction), distinguishes between load requests (deleted) and activation requests (rolled back), and gives explicit guidance for the all_requests=true case to clear a provider. It also names the confirmation step (bw_list_requests) and explicitly says what it is NOT for (selective deletion), giving an agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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