delete_destination

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It clearly reveals a non-obvious behavior: the operation is blocked (409) when aliases reference this destination, and it tells the agent how to resolve it. This is meaningful beyond the raw delete semantics, though it does not mention reversibility or whether the deletion cascades, which are minor gaps for a simple delete tool.

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 exceptionally concise: one sentence states the core action and another states the key conflict and remedy. Every word contributes meaning, and the critical prerequisite is front-loaded with an em dash rather than buried in extra prose.

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 operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what is removed, when it fails, and what to do before calling. It omits details like authorization requirements and response format, but those are unlikely to prevent a correct call. The conflict behavior is the main contextual risk, and it is fully disclosed.

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 only parameter is destination_id, and the schema provides its type (uuid) but no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The tool description identifies the resource as a 'forwarding destination' and implies that destination_id is the identifier of the destination to remove, but it does not explicitly confirm the mapping or add any detail about where to find this ID. The parameter is simple and self-explanatory enough that the description provides baseline value, but it does not fully compensate for the absent schema-level description.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Remove a forwarding destination,' which clearly distinguishes this delete operation from sibling tools like delete_alias. It also immediately identifies the target (forwarding destination) and the primary failure condition, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives practical usage context by stating that deletion fails with 409 when aliases still forward to the destination and instructs the agent to 'reassign those aliases first.' This tells the agent the prerequisite for successful use, though it does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it beyond the conflict scenario.

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