Billing Plans Delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not required to carry the safety profile. It usefully adds the required auth scope ('write_plans'), the HTTP verb/path, and API version — context not present in the annotations. It stops short of describing the consequence for subscriptions bound to the plan.

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?

Four short, front-loaded lines with the purpose first, then endpoint, scope, and version. Zero filler, and each line carries distinct information.

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 destructive delete whose annotations already flag destructiveness and idempotency, the description covers the essentials: action, endpoint, auth scope, and version. The one meaningful gap is the downstream effect on existing billing subscriptions.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already carries the semantics of plan_id. The description only shows it as a path segment ({plan_id}), adding format/location context but no meaning beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete an app billing plan'), which immediately distinguishes it from the billing_plans_create and billing_plans_update siblings. An agent can route to it without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and by the presence of create/update siblings, and the required 'write_plans' scope acts as a prerequisite signal. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over alternatives or of any preconditions such as whether active subscriptions must be removed first.

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