REP Helper

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

The annotation only indicates destructiveHint=true, but the description adds essential behavioral nuance: the deletion is 'soft' (recoverable), the property becomes hidden from queries, the specific 72-hour recovery window, and the external recovery tool required. This significantly enhances safety and operational understanding.

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 sentences with zero waste. First sentence states the action (soft-delete), second sentence covers consequences and recovery. Information is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a single-parameter destructive operation.

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 deletion tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the deletion semantics, visibility impact, recovery timeframe, and recovery method—sufficient context for safe invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage ('The property ID to delete'), so the baseline score is 3. The description does not add additional parameter semantics, but none are needed given the complete schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb phrase ('Soft-delete a property') that clearly identifies the operation and resource. It distinguishes from sibling delete_activity by specifying 'property,' and adds crucial scope clarification by defining what 'soft-delete' means.

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?

While it doesn't explicitly map alternatives (e.g., 'use update_property to modify instead'), it provides critical operational context: the 72-hour recovery window and the recovery mechanism (REP Helper web app). This gives clear guidance on the consequences of invocation.

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