sharing_recipients_delete

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is clear. The description adds the API endpoint (DELETE) which is consistent. However, no additional behavioral context is given (e.g., whether deletion is irreversible, any permission requirements, or impact on related resources).

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 very concise (two lines), but it lacks structure. It is front-loaded with the action and includes the API path, which is helpful. However, it could be more structured to include usage tips or behavior details.

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?

Given the single parameter, annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it fails to provide any contextual completeness about when to use this tool vs. alternative recipient management tools or any constraints (e.g., requirements for deletion).

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?

The schema covers the parameter 'name' with a clear description ('Recipient name'), and coverage is 100%. The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action: 'Delete a Delta Sharing recipient'. The verb 'delete' and the resource 'Delta Sharing recipient' are specific, and the HTTP method and path are included. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, get, list, etc.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to delete vs. update a recipient). It does not mention prerequisites, post-conditions, or any contextual cues that help an agent decide to invoke this tool.

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