delete_participant

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the requirement for an eTag for optimistic locking, automatic fetching if omitted, and the return of success or error details. This provides adequate transparency about the tool's behavior.

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: two sentences that are front-loaded with the core action, followed by essential details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 has 4 parameters including a nested sessionCredentials object, no output schema, and many siblings, the description adequately covers the core behavior, parameter usage, and outcomes. It could mention the response format explicitly, but the mention of 'success confirmation or detailed error information' is sufficient.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context (e.g., auto-fetch eTag, seamless operation) but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.

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 participant), the target (Pega case by case ID and participant ID), and explicitly distinguishes from siblings like create_case_participant and update_participant by focusing on deletion with optimistic locking via eTag.

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 explains when to use the tool (to delete a participant from a case) and highlights convenience features like automatic eTag fetching. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough.

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