Delete creator

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the permanence of removal, the precondition that blocks deletion, and the fact that the first call writes nothing. It also discloses that the first call returns a preview object plus a confirm_token, which is core non-obvious behavior.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and its blocker, then the two-step protocol. Every sentence carries information needed to call the tool correctly; no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains what the first call returns (a preview and a confirm_token) and what the second call does, so an agent knows the full interaction lifecycle. Nothing material is missing for a destructive two-step tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the schema already documents confirm_token. The description still earns above baseline by clarifying the token contract (obtain from preview, pass with identical arguments) and implying the two-call protocol the parameter participates in.

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 (permanently removes) and resource (a saved creator), and the scope word 'permanently' distinguishes it from softer mutations. An agent can immediately tell this apart from read-oriented siblings like get_creator or list_creators.

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 explicit preconditions for refusal (open deals that are offered, accepted, or verified-but-unpaid) and prescribes the exact invocation sequence: preview first, user approval, then re-call with identical arguments plus confirm_token. Nothing about when/when-not is left to inference.

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