catalog_delete_policy

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description merely repeats the delete action and endpoint, adding no permission requirements, cascade effects, irreversibility details, or post-delete behavior beyond identifying the resource as a pricing card.

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 short, but two near-identical sentences restate the same delete action, and the endpoint duplicates the annotation title. It is front-loaded but redundant rather than efficient.

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 simple one-parameter destructive tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is sufficient to invoke the operation. However, it lacks disambiguation from policy-related siblings and does not clarify the relationship between 'policy' in the tool name and 'pricing card' in the description.

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?

There is only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% ('pricing card Id (path)'). The description's 'specified Id' matches the schema and adds no format or constraint details, which is acceptable given the schema already documents it.

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?

States a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('pricing card') and includes the endpoint, so the action is identifiable. However, it does not distinguish this from catalog/policy siblings, and the name/description mismatch ('policy' vs 'pricing card') may create selection ambiguity.

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 provides no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not say whether to inspect the policy first, what happens after deletion, or when another catalog/policy tool should be used instead.

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