mailkite_delete_trigger

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds useful context: 'stops future enrollments through that door and nothing else' – clarifying the scope of destruction (only future enrollments, not existing ones). It also mentions the API key requirement (mk_live_…) which is a behavioral prerequisite. However, it doesn't detail idempotency, though annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true. The description adds value but doesn't add much beyond annotations, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 zero waste. The first sentence states the action, the second provides the key differentiation and the auth requirement. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and ends with a necessary practical detail. Perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple single-parameter deletion tool with annotations covering destructive and idempotent hints, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the effect on future enrollments, which is the main behavioral nuance, and the auth requirement. It doesn't mention what happens to existing enrollments or whether it's reversible, but annotations and the simple nature of the operation make it less critical. A slight gap is the absence of the return value, but with no output schema, it's acceptable. Overall, it provides enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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% for the only parameter 'id', but the description is minimal ('Path parameter id'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter, as it doesn't explain what the id represents (trigger ID). However, given that the tool name is 'delete_trigger', it's reasonable to assume id is the trigger ID. Since coverage is high, baseline is 3, but the description's mention of 'trigger' and 'door' gives contextual clue about the parameter's purpose. The description adds a bit more than just the schema, so a 4 is warranted.

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 states a clear verb ('detach') and resource ('trigger'), and clarifies the effect ('stops future enrollments through that door and nothing else'). It distinguishes itself from delete_trigger by using 'detach' and emphasizing it's non-destructive to other parts, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools. The purpose is clear and specific.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you want to stop future enrollments without affecting existing enrollments or other settings. It provides a clear context ('through that door') and indicates it does nothing else. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with related tools like mailkite_delete_trigger (if exists) or mailkite_cancel_enrollment, leaving some inference to the agent. Since the sibling list includes mailkite_stop_sequence and mailkite_delete_sequence, a more explicit differentiation would help, but the description gives enough guidance for most cases.

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