onboarding_delete_deployment_by_id

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no statement about cascading deletion of associated plans/resources, required permissions, or whether the delete is soft or permanent — so it fails to earn credit over the 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 same sentence is repeated verbatim twice before the raw HTTP route, which is redundant padding rather than front-loaded signal. Almost nothing in the text is new information after the first clause.

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 one-parameter destructive delete whose annotations already flag danger and idempotency, the essentials are present, but key facts an agent would want — scope of the deletion, side effects on linked plans/resources, and confirmation that the id is a deployment id in the current org — are absent, and there is no output schema to cover return behavior.

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 whose schema description ('The id of the deployment (path)') is fully documented at 100% coverage, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description mentions only 'the selected deployment' and adds no meaning about where the id comes from or what it identifies.

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 and resource ('Delete the selected onboarding deployment in the current organization'), which is enough to distinguish an onboarding-deployment deletion from deployment_delete_deployment or onboarding_delete_blueprint_by_id. It never explicitly names or contrasts those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 onboarding_delete_plan_by_id, onboarding_delete_resource_by_id, or deployment_delete_deployment, nor any prerequisite such as the deployment being in a deletable state. The description is pure restatement of the operation with no usage context.

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