delete_dead_letter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the one critical trait, that deletion is permanent/irreversible, which is real value. But it says nothing about required permissions, whether the record is recoverable elsewhere, or how it interacts with dead letter retention/listing.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise — a single clause for a destructive operation leaves too much unsaid.

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 tool with no output schema, the essentials are present (target + permanence). Missing the practical context an agent needs: how to get a valid stream ID, and that retrying is the non-destructive alternative.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Stream ID of the dead letter'), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no format hints (where to obtain the stream ID, e.g. from list_dead_letters), 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 and resource ('delete a dead letter') that maps unambiguously to the tool name. It does not explicitly differentiate from the closest sibling, retry_dead_letter, but the permanent-vs-retry distinction is at least implied by the word 'Permanently'.

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?

No indication of when to delete versus retry a dead letter, which is the obvious fork an agent faces given retry_dead_letter sits alongside it. No prerequisites, no warnings about confirming with the user before an irreversible action.

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