provider_delete_custom_rights_category

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. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating 'deletes by id' and the HTTP path — nothing about referential consequences for rights in that category, permission requirements, or whether the delete is reversible.

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?

Three lines where one would do: sentence two paraphrases sentence one, and the raw HTTP path duplicates the annotation title. It is front-loaded and short, but a meaningful fraction of the text is redundant rather than informative.

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, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description should at minimum say what the caller gets back and what failure modes exist (in-use category, missing id). Neither is covered, and the annotations alone don't fill that gap.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already carries the semantics ('id', path). The description only echoes 'by id' and adds no format, origin, or lookup guidance (e.g., obtaining the id from provider_query_rights_categories), so baseline 3 applies.

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 (custom rights category) plus an identifier scope, which distinguishes it from list/query siblings like provider_query_rights_categories and provider_get_rights_category. It does not, however, distinguish it from provider_delete_right, which operates on a related but different object, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 provider_delete_right or how it relates to provider_create_custom_rights_category. Preconditions that matter for a destructive delete — whether the category must be empty of rights, or whether rights assigned to it are orphaned/there is a hard failure — are entirely absent.

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