delete_envelope

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a destructive operation ('Permanently delete') and specifies constraints on envelope states. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens after deletion (e.g., confirmation, side effects).

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 extremely concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and zero waste. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds critical constraints, making every word earn its place.

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 tool's complexity (destructive operation with state constraints), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by specifying the permanence and state restrictions. However, it could be more complete by mentioning authentication needs or return values, but it's adequate for the context.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'envelope_id' fully documented in the schema as 'The UUID of the envelope to delete'. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 specific action ('permanently delete') and resource ('an envelope'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying which envelope states can be deleted ('Only draft and voided envelopes can be deleted'). This provides precise differentiation from tools like void_envelope or send_envelope.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Only draft and voided envelopes can be deleted'), which provides clear context for usage. It implicitly suggests alternatives for other envelope states (e.g., sent envelopes cannot be deleted, so other tools might be needed). This is explicit guidance on when-not to use it.

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