Delete mailing list

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the cascade: subscriptions are removed while subscriber records survive, which an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the permanence warning and the resource front-loaded before the side-effect clause.

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 destructive tool with rich annotations and no output schema, this covers the essentials: what is deleted and what is preserved. It does not address failure modes (e.g. an unknown id, or a list still referenced by campaigns), which would be the remaining useful detail.

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 0% for the single 'id' parameter, so the description must compensate. 'by id' does establish that the id identifies the list (not a subscriber or campaign) and that lookup is by primary identifier, but it adds no constraints such as positivity or format.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a mailing list by id'), which separates it from list_update/list_create/list_get by verb alone. It stops short of naming a sibling or the alternative action (e.g. deactivate vs delete), so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 word 'Permanently' signals this is the irreversible-removal path rather than an update, so usage is implied. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of the alternative (list_update) and no prerequisites or preconditions stated.

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