ms_delete_method

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds crucial behavioral detail: both confirm_write and i_understand_this_modifies_data must be true, and 'nothing is sent without both.' This goes beyond the structured annotations and gives the agent a clear safety gate for an irreversible action. It also discloses the return envelope shape.

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 front-loaded destructive warning, a target API link, required-flag emphasis, and a clear args list. There is minor redundancy around the confirmation flags (stated twice), and the return example has a small formatting quirk, but overall it is appropriately sized and scannable.

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 complex destructive tool with 6 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the essential invocation details: where to get operation_id, how path_values work, confirmation requirements, and the return envelope. It does not explain the error envelope structure or fully elaborate query/body semantics, but the output schema and API link cover some of that ground.

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 carry parameter meaning. It does so for operation_id by pointing to the catalog, defines path_values as placeholder substitution, labels query and body accurately, and explicitly marks both confirmation booleans as required. It could add more detail about query/body formatting, but it compensates well for the missing schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Execute one DESTRUCTIVE endpoint: deletes or irreversibly changes data.' This clearly establishes the tool's destructive nature and distinguishes it from sibling tools like ms_call_method and ms_delete_raw by framing it as a catalog-driven endpoint operation rather than a raw call.

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: use this for a destructive catalog endpoint, and it directs the agent to ms_search_methods for obtaining operation_id. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools for non-destructive operations, so it falls short of a 5, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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