wealthbox.opportunities.delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the verb 'delete' but does not indicate whether the operation is permanent, soft delete, requires confirmation, or has cascading effects. For a destructive tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 extremely concise with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it is almost too terse, lacking necessary context that could be provided without adding fluff. Still, as a standalone phrase, it is appropriately sized for a simple delete 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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description must provide operational context. It fails to cover critical details such as permanence, idempotency, related data effects, or error scenarios. The tool is a destructive operation, yet the description is a bare statement, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance.

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 includes a required 'id' parameter with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention the parameter or explain that the id identifies the opportunity to delete. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it provides no parameter-related meaning.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('opportunity'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools targeting other resources. However, it is terse and provides no additional context about the operation's scope, making it slightly less informative than a more descriptive purpose statement.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or contrast with other delete tools (e.g., permanent removal versus other operations). The description provides no contextual direction for an AI agent.

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