conduyt_delete_deal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it explains what actually happens (removed from lists/boards, drops out of pipeline totals), what is retained (row kept for audit), and the recovery constraint (no undelete endpoint, irreversible via API). That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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 tight sentences: operation and soft-delete semantics first, intended use second, the critical irreversibility warning last. No filler and the highest-risk information is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: identity of the resource, side effects on lists and pipeline totals, data retention, and absence of an undo path.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the UUID format and required status. The description's "by UUID" phrasing adds nothing beyond the schema, so 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 and resource ("Delete a deal by UUID") and immediately qualifies the semantics with "soft-delete," which distinguishes it from hard-delete siblings like conduyt_delete_contact or conduyt_delete_task. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

"Use this to clean up test or mistaken deals" gives a clear use case, and the irreversibility note warns when to be cautious. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., marking a deal lost via conduyt_update_deal, or conduyt_bulk_delete_contacts-style bulk paths), so there are no explicit exclusions.

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