Delete a plan constant

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

The description adds substantial context beyond the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations: it requires operator write opt-in and confirm:true, and warns that the action may notify recipients or change tenant data. This meaningfully signals side effects an agent should consider before calling the tool.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence carries useful information: endpoint, body expectations, reference, and required safeguards. There is no filler or repetition of the obvious.

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 no output schema, the description covers the critical operational details: HTTP method, path, confirmation requirement, opt-in, and potential side effects. It could be slightly more complete by stating what a successful response looks like or explicitly contrasting with the modify and create siblings, but it is not missing essential safety information.

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 endpoint template adds some meaning by showing planId and constantId as path variables, and the description restates the confirm:true requirement, but the schema already documents confirm and query. The planId and constantId properties themselves remain undocumented in both schema and description, so the description only partially compensates.

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 opens with the exact operation, 'Delete a plan constant', and reinforces it with the full DELETE endpoint, so the verb and resource are unmistakable. It is also clearly distinct from sibling tools like create/modify/get plan constants.

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 is implied by the operation name and description, but no explicit guidance is given about when to choose this tool over related tools such as modify_a_plan_constant or get_plan_constants. The confirmation and opt-in requirements are operational constraints, not usage comparisons.

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