activity_types_delete

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: soft delete (marks as inactive, active_flag = false), only custom types, system types unaffected. No contradictions.

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?

Well-organized into sections: title, description, workflow tips, common use cases. Each sentence adds value. Two example use cases are concise and informative. No fluff.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is fully complete. It covers behavior, limitations, side effects, and prerequisites. Examples illustrate usage.

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 100% with a clear 'id' description. The description adds value by recommending a prerequisite step (list to find ID) and showing example formats for the ID. Exceeds baseline.

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 explicitly states 'Delete an activity type' and explains it marks as deleted. It distinguishes from siblings like 'activities_delete' by focusing on activity types, not activities themselves.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use: only custom activity types. Includes workflow tips like finding the ID via 'activity_types/list' and checking 'is_custom_flag'. Also explains consequences (existing activities retain type, not available for new).

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