passgage_delete_approval

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It states the action (delete) but does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, whether it has cascading effects on related data, or whether special permissions are required. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It immediately states the action and resource. Despite a minor grammar error, it is highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is very simple (one parameter, no output schema), so the description covers the core invocation details. However, it omits any mention of deletion semantics (permanence, cascading effects) and the expected return value, leaving the agent without full context for a destructive operation. This meets the minimum viable level but leaves clear gaps.

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 fully documents the only parameter (`id` as the UUID of the approval), so the description's 'by ID' adds little new information. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Delete' and specifies the resource 'approval' with the method 'by ID', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like passgage_delete_approval_flow and passgage_delete_user. The grammar error ('a approval') is minor and does not obscure meaning.

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 provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied by the tool name and the CRUD pattern visible in sibling tools, but there is no mention of alternatives (e.g., if deleting an approval flow, use a different tool). This meets the minimum viable threshold for implied usage.

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