delete_master

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: permanent/deleting nature, backup taken first, Tally-side refusal when referenced by vouchers, and the confirmation gate are all disclosed. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the destructive scope before the caveats. No filler; each sentence adds either scope, failure mode, or the confirmation requirement.

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 master tool with no output schema, it covers consequences (permanence, backup, refusal conditions) and the confirmation gate. Minor gap: it never points to list_backups or explains where the backup lands, nor mentions dry_run for safe rehearsal.

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 60%, and the description mostly restates what the schema says ('Requires confirm: true' duplicates the schema's 'Must be true'). It never mentions the dry_run escape hatch or the company parameter, which would have been meaningfully additive.

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?

States a specific verb ('Permanently delete') plus an enumerated set of resources and distinguishes itself from the delete_voucher / alter_master siblings by naming exactly which master types it covers. An agent can route here without inspecting the 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?

Gives a clear precondition ('Requires confirm: true') and a process instruction ('get the user's approval first'), plus an implicit precondition that the object must be unused. It does not explicitly say when to prefer alter_master or create_master, so sibling exclusions are only implied.

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