mailkite_delete_route

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds value by noting the requirement for a management session token, which is a behavioral prerequisite not visible in the schema or annotations. It also frames the destructive action as a cleanup step, which is useful context. It doesn't contradict 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 description is two sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, followed by a practical pairing example and a security prerequisite. Every sentence earns 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?

For a single-parameter delete tool with annotations covering destructive/idempotent behavior, the description is nearly complete. It covers the action, the resource, the pairing context, and the auth requirement. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the return value or error behavior, but with no output schema and a simple delete operation, this is acceptable.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (the 'id' parameter is described as 'Path parameter `id`.'), so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds no additional meaning about the id beyond what the schema provides, but it does clarify the resource type ('inbound routing rule') which indirectly helps. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 an inbound routing rule by id'), identifies the resource ('inbound routing rule'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like mailkite_delete_webhook and mailkite_delete_tracking_webhook by specifying 'routing rule'. It also names the paired creation tool (createRoute), which further disambiguates it.

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 explains when to use this tool: pair with createRoute to register and tear down a webhook destination, e.g., an automation platform subscribing on enable and cleaning up on disable. This provides clear context and an example use case, effectively guiding an agent on when to invoke it.

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