onboarding_delete_blueprint_by_id

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the organization scoping context; it does not say what is destroyed (dependent plans/deployments?), whether deletion is reversible, or what authorization is required — all of which matter for a destructive call.

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 first two lines are near-verbatim duplicates ('Delete the selected onboarding blueprint' / 'Delete the selected onboarding blueprint in the current organization'), and the third is a raw HTTP route that duplicates the annotation title. Substantial redundancy for a three-line description.

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 destructive delete with strong annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient — the agent knows what it deletes and where. It is missing consequences of deletion and any post-delete state, which for a destructive tool is the main thing description can still add.

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 a single required 'id' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds nothing about the id (format, whether it is the blueprint id or an external reference) beyond what the schema states.

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 names a specific verb and resource (delete the selected onboarding blueprint) and adds the scope 'in the current organization'. It is clear what the tool does, though it never distinguishes itself from adjacent onboarding tools such as onboarding_get_blueprint_by_id or onboarding_patch_blueprint_by_id beyond the verb.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., patching a blueprint, or deleting via the blueprint_* family of tools), nor any prerequisites or warnings before an irreversible delete. The only hint is the implicit 'you must already have an id'.

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