crpt_delete_method

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds value by specifying the mandatory confirm_write and i_understand_this_modifies_data flags and stating that nothing is sent without both. It also describes the return envelope. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear intro, an Args list, and a return-format note. Each sentence earns its place, and the destructive nature and required flags are front-loaded. It could be slightly more concise, but the format is effective.

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 destructive nature, six parameters, and an existing output schema, the description covers essential usage aspects: required flags, reference to operation_id source, and a summary of the return format. It does not detail authentication or error handling, but those are likely covered elsewhere, making it sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining each parameter: operation_id from the catalog, path_values for placeholders, query for query-string parameters, body as JSON, and the two required boolean flags. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles and covers all six parameters.

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 clearly states the tool executes a DESTRUCTIVE endpoint that deletes or irreversibly changes data, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from non-destructive siblings via the 'DESTRUCTIVE' qualifier and the explicit 'deletes or irreversibly changes data' clause, though it does not name alternative tools directly.

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 clear context that this tool is for destructive operations and references crpt_search_methods for obtaining operation_id. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives like crpt_write_method or crpt_call_method, leaving some inference to the agent.

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