fiken_delete_offer_draft

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true. The description adds no extra context about what happens upon deletion (e.g., irreversibility, related records affected). For a destructive action, more disclosure is warranted.

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 a single, concise sentence that states the action directly. No unnecessary words or details.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, clear annotations), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about when deletion is allowed (e.g., draft state) and error scenarios.

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 'draftId' lacks any description in the schema or the tool description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain that draftId is the numeric identifier of the offer draft to delete, but it does not.

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 'Deletes an offer draft' uses a specific verb ('deletes') and resource ('offer draft'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like fiken_list_offer_drafts, fiken_get_offer_draft, etc. The action is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., fiken_delete_invoice_draft, fiken_delete_sale_draft) or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or constraints like draft existence.

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