Delete master data record

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations: cascade deletion of an emptied group, the open-unit-of-work constraint, refusal-with-naming when referrers exist, and the important scope caveat that open-project assignments are a separate copy and untouched. This is exactly the kind of mutation context the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Purpose, cascade behavior and preconditions are front-loaded and dense with useful information. The fragment 'Inside an open unit of work only.' is slightly unpolished but its brevity is intentional and it earns its place as a hard constraint.

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 destructive mutation with an output schema present, the description covers cascade effects, preconditions, refusal semantics, and the project-copy scope limitation, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely.

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 id/code oneOf and the type enum are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or disambiguation beyond that, 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 and resource ('Deletes a single element of the resource pool') and immediately scopes it against siblings by naming rillsoft_calendar_delete as the analogous tool. An agent can tell this apart from rillsoft_element_delete or resource_pool_resource_update 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?

Gives a clear precondition ('Inside an open unit of work only') and precise refusal conditions when referenced by a person/role/team/machine. It does not explicitly route to an alternative tool for cases outside an open unit of work, but the context is strong enough to select the tool correctly.

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