delete_recipient

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure: it states that the record is retained with personal data removed, later reads return 404, new envelopes create a fresh recipient, and already-sent envelopes are unaffected. It also discloses the 400 error condition and prerequisite action, giving the agent a rich understanding of side effects and failure modes.

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 front-loaded with the action, followed by consequences and error handling. It uses three dense but purposeful sentences without redundant filler, and every clause delivers useful operational information.

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 single-parameter deletion tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, data-retention behavior, dependent-object impact, and error prerequisite. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears to be missing.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single recipientId parameter, so the schema already defines its meaning. The description adds no additional syntax or semantic detail about recipientId beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Delete' and resource 'stored recipient from your account directory', making it clearly distinct from sibling tools such as create_recipient, list_recipients, and remove_recipient_signature. The scope is explicit enough that an agent can select it without opening other schemas.

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?

It explains usage implicitly by describing the deletion effect and explicitly notes a rejection condition ('Rejected with a 400 error while ...') with the prerequisite alternative 'call remove_recipient_signature first'. It does not compare against update_recipient or delete_envelope, but the context and prerequisite cover the main decision point.

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