Outscraper Request Delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys the destructive nature ('Delete or terminate'), the irreversible consequence ('after deletion, the original async request should not be expected to complete normally'), and the intent for cleanup or cancellation. This is rich context for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured with a single opening sentence followed by bullet points for 'Best for' and 'Use this carefully'. Every sentence contributes meaningful guidance without fluff, and the formatting makes it easy to scan.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, usage scenarios, cautionary notes, and post-deletion behavior. No critical information is missing, and the output schema handles return value details.

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 schema already covers the single parameter 'request_id' with a clear description ('Async request id to delete'), and it has 100% coverage. The description only repeats 'by request id' without adding format, validation, or additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Delete or terminate an asynchronous Outscraper request by request id', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like requests_get and requests_list by focusing on deletion/termination rather than retrieval or listing.

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 'Best for' section explicitly lists when to use the tool (cleaning up queued jobs, stopping polling, testing lifecycle), while 'Use this carefully' provides clear when-not guidance (only when sure the request is no longer needed). This gives implicit alternatives and cautions without explicitly naming other tools.

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