hh_delete_method

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true, but the description adds beyond that: it states the operation 'deletes or irreversibly changes data,' emphasizes that no request is sent without both confirmation flags, and discloses the JSON return envelope. This gives the agent concrete behavioral expectations beyond the annotation hints.

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 front-loaded with the destructive warning, then states the target API, required safety flags, and parameter meanings in a compact structured list. No sentence is wasted; the return format and error envelope are included without bloat.

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 tool with six parameters and no schema descriptions, this is complete: it names the target API, explains each argument, enforces the confirmation flags, points to hh_search_methods for operation_id, and describes the response shape. An agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It explains all six parameters: operation_id from the catalog, path_values for placeholders, query for query-string parameters, body for JSON request body, and both confirmation booleans. This is strong coverage for every schema field.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: 'Execute one DESTRUCTIVE endpoint: deletes or irreversibly changes data.' It also ties the tool to a concrete target API and distinguishes it as the destructive counterpart to other call/write methods. The scope is unambiguous and not a tautology of the tool name.

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 makes usage conditions explicit: both confirm_write and i_understand_this_modifies_data must be true, and 'nothing is sent without both.' It also tells the agent where to obtain operation_id via hh_search_methods. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to avoid, but the destructive-purpose framing makes the appropriate context clear.

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