deleteParticipant

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: permanence, irreversibility, failure by default if participant has active proposals/bookings, and force=true cancels those. All key traits are covered.

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, each earning its place: purpose+contrast, alternative, nuance. No wasted words. Front-loaded with the critical usage instruction.

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 deletion tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites (active proposals/bookings), behavior with force, and alternative. It is complete given the tool's complexity.

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% with descriptions. The description adds context: force=true is for cancelling active proposals/bookings, and implies default behavior. It adds value beyond the schema but does not detail the UUID format beyond what's in the schema.

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 tool permanently and irreversibly erases a participant and all their data. It distinguishes from updateParticipant for deactivation, and uses specific verbs like 'erase' and 'delete'. The resource and action are unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this tool only when you need to permanently and irreversibly erase a participant'. Provides alternative (updateParticipant for inactivation) and warns about force=true. Excellent guidance on when and when not to use.

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