Delete deal

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds materially new behavior: the delete is permanent, linked follow-ups are unlinked rather than removed, and the first invocation is a no-write preview. That confirmation-gate detail is not derivable from any annotation or schema field.

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?

Two compact sentences, no filler. The permanence and cascade facts are front-loaded, and the two-step workflow follows immediately, so an agent reads the risky semantics before the mechanics.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value context (preview plus confirm_token) and the full apply protocol. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is absent.

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 50%: confirm_token is well described in the schema itself, while deal_id carries only a regex pattern. The description reinforces confirm_token usage but adds little about deal_id beyond its name, so it neither compensates for the gap nor goes beyond the schema.

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 ('Permanently delete a deal') and immediately scopes the blast radius ('follow-ups linked to it are unlinked, not deleted'). That cascade note is exactly what distinguishes it from siblings like upsert_deal or delete_contact, which an agent can differentiate without opening any schema.

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 two-call protocol: first call with no confirm_token returns only a preview, then a second call with identical arguments plus the token applies the change, gated on user approval. There is no inference required about when to call which way.

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