Canned Responses: Remove a Canned Response from Account

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

The annotation set already declares destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so 'permanently deletes the resource' largely restates structured data. The genuinely additive content is the auth requirement (User API key in `api-access-token` header) and the note that Persian/Arabic-Indic digits and multilingual text are passed through unchanged, which an agent would not otherwise know.

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 tool purpose and endpoint are front-loaded in the first two lines, with auth and destructiveness following. The digit/encoding note is somewhat tangential but short and plausibly useful for this API's user base.

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 two-required-parameter destructive DELETE with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the description covers purpose, endpoint, auth and irreversibility — everything needed to call it safely. Only the success response shape is unaddressed, which is minor for a delete with no output schema.

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% and both parameters (id, account_id) are fully documented in the schema, so the description correctly defers to it. The only additional hints — that IDs may use Persian or Arabic-Indic digits and are sent unchanged — are marginal for a two-parameter delete.

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 specific verb and resource ('Remove a canned response from the account') and pins it down further with the literal endpoint DELETE /api/v1/accounts/{account_id}/canned_responses/{id}. It does not explicitly name siblings like gapify_update_canned_response or gapify_list_canned_responses, but the add/update/list/remove verb set makes the distinction obvious.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the deletion counterpart to update/list, but the description never says when to prefer it, what preconditions exist (e.g. that the canned response must exist), or what to do instead if the intent was to deactivate rather than delete.

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