delete_custom_question

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does real work: it discloses the auth requirement (Bearer PERSONAL_OAUTH_TOKEN) and concrete 403 NOT_AUTHORIZED and 404 NOT_FOUND failure modes, which an agent cannot get from the schema. It stops short of stating irreversibility or what the success response contains, which for a destructive verb is the one notable omission.

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 labeled sections (ENDPOINT, ERRORS, AUTHENTICATION) are front-loaded after the purpose sentence and make the critical facts scannable. The ALL-CAPS labels add slight visual overhead but every block carries distinct information, so nothing is wasted.

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 two-param destructive tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies auth, error semantics, and the exact endpoint, which is enough for correct invocation. It would be fully complete with a note on reversibility/confirmation and the success return shape.

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 both required params (event_id, question_id), and both are already documented in the schema. The endpoint line corroborates the path-parameter semantics but adds no format, constraint, or lookup detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Delete) and resource (custom Question), and the ENDPOINT line pins the exact scope to /events/{event_id}/questions/{question_id}/, which distinguishes it from the sibling delete_default_question by resource path. It never names that sibling or contrasts the two explicitly, so sibling differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites beyond auth, and no mention of alternatives such as delete_default_question or how to first identify the question_id. The agent must infer usage entirely from the verb and endpoint.

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