Delete a plan endpoint

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it requires operator write opt-in and confirm:true, may notify recipients or change tenant data, and notes the plural/singular discrepancy in the API definition. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 and front-loaded with the core action and endpoint. The additional notes about plural/singular, body fields, reference link, and requirements are each useful and not redundant. It is slightly dense with multiple clauses in one sentence, but every sentence earns its place.

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 key operational facts: the HTTP method and path, the required confirm flag, the write opt-in requirement, and potential side effects. It does not describe the response format, but no output schema exists and the reference link is provided. The main missing piece is a clearer statement of what happens on success or failure, but the description is largely complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 67%, and the description adds meaning for the confirm parameter by explaining it is 'Explicit approval of this exact mutation' and that the operator must enable XMATTERS_ALLOW_WRITES. The path parameters (planId, endpointId) are self-explanatory from the schema and the endpoint URL. The description does not add much for the query parameter, but the schema already documents it as having no documented names and explicit pagination.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete'), a specific resource ('a plan endpoint'), and the exact HTTP endpoint. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like xmatters_get_plan_endpoints, xmatters_create_plan_endpoint, and xmatters_modify_a_plan_endpoint by naming the delete operation explicitly. The plural/singular note adds precision.

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 gives clear context: it requires operator write opt-in and confirm:true, and warns that it may notify recipients or change tenant data. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use it, but the delete-specific wording and the sibling list make the usage context clear. A small gap is not stating when to prefer a different endpoint (e.g., modify instead of delete).

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