senders_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that deletion is permanent ('permanently deleted'), outlines a key blocking condition (associated projects), and specifies the HTTP response (204 with no body). This is sufficient for an agent to understand the consequences and side effects, though it could mention error codes or idempotency.

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 description is compact (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds distinct information: the endpoint, the permanence, the constraint, and the response. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simple delete operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to invoke it (via endpoint), a critical precondition, and the expected response. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly, though it omits details like authentication or error handling, which are likely system-level rather than tool-specific.

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. The description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameter 'sender_id'; it only restates the endpoint path. The schema already provides 'The ID of a sender.' The description does not explain how to obtain the ID or any format requirements, so it adds no value 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?

The description explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'To delete a sender'. It names the specific resource and action, and includes the HTTP method and endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like senders_create, senders_get, or senders_update.

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?

The description implies usage by stating the action, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., senders_update). It does provide a useful constraint ('cannot delete if associated projects'), which serves as a precondition. However, it lacks guidance on when not to use the tool or when to prefer other tools.

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