Delete check

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses critical behavioral traits: permanence, non-recoverable UUID, downstream script breakage, and the two-step confirmation-token workflow. These are valuable details not derivable from readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, or idempotentHint alone. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by consequence and workflow. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of the title.

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 destructive two-step tool, the description covers the action, the irreversibility, the impact on scripts, and the required calling sequence. With annotations and an output schema present, nothing essential is missing for an agent to use it safely.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are well-described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful workflow context by explaining how check and confirm_token relate across the two calls, elevating it slightly above the schema alone.

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: 'Deletes a check permanently.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools like pause_check or update_check by emphasizing permanence and the irreversible consequence of breaking deployed scripts. The purpose is immediately clear.

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 usage when permanent deletion is intended and explains the required two-step flow. However, it never explicitly contrasts with pause_check or resume_check, so an agent could overuse this destructive tool when a temporary pause would be more appropriate.

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