deleteLicenseSlots

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower, but the description still adds permission requirements, an explicit irreversibility warning ('cannot be recovered through the API'), and the exact behavior of dry_run (validates, redacts the Authorization header, summarizes binary payloads, returns preview as text and structured content). That is material context absent from the 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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope, then permission, verification steps, irreversibility, and the dry_run tip in a sensible order. The closing sentence about structured content versus normal text is slightly meta and reads as filler for a tool with no output schema.

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?

Covers permission model, reversibility, verification workflow, and safe dry-run validation — more than enough for a destructive three-parameter tool whose safety profile is already in annotations. The one gap is the request body: the schema describes it only as 'No Content', and the description does not explain the id/type payload either, leaving the actual deletion target under-specified.

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% and dry_run is already fully documented in the schema, so the description's tip largely restates it. It adds no interpretation of typeId or of the requestBody shape (array of objects with id and type: license_slots), which is where an agent would most benefit from guidance. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Deletes specified license slots') plus the scope ('server-wide administrative change'), which separates it from the many page/document/work-item delete siblings. It also names the read counterparts (getLicenseSlots, getLicense) so the agent can place it in the right family of license tools.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('requiring license administration permission'), explicit pre-steps ('Read current assignments with getLicenseSlots and capacity with getLicense before removal'), and recommends an alternative execution mode ('set dry_run: true first') before committing. There is essentially no inference left about when to call this versus a read tool.

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