Delete GHL Opportunity

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description aligns with these by saying 'permanently delete,' which adds a small nuance of irreversibility beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose any additional behaviors like cascading deletions, auth requirements, or rate limits. Minimal added value over annotations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it instantly scannable. It is appropriately concise for a simple one-parameter delete tool.

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 simple delete tool with one parameter and clear annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It communicates the essential purpose and irreversible nature. However, it lacks any mention of consequences for the opportunity or prerequisites, such as whether the opportunity must exist. Given the simplicity, it does not need extensive context, but a bit more would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, describing it as 'Opportunity ID to delete.' The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond this. The baseline of 3 applies since schema coverage is high.

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 'Permanently delete an opportunity' uses a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('opportunity'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like update, create, or get. The word 'permanently' adds crucial nuance about irreversibility, making the purpose 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, irreversibility warnings, or that this should be used instead of updating status or deleting via other means. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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