delete_custom_metadata_providers_by_id

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a destructive but idempotent operation. The description adds the instruction to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first to understand the body fields, which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose consequences like cascading deletions or irreversibility beyond what annotations imply.

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-loads the core operation in the first line. The endpoint and args are clearly separated. It earns its place with the body guidance, though the 'Args' section is somewhat redundant with the schema.

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 delete operation with annotations covering destructive and idempotent hints, the description is mostly adequate. It lacks details about the response format (though an output schema exists) and doesn't explain what happens to related data. The pointer to GET/schema for body fields is a reasonable workaround but leaves the agent to do extra research.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'id' is a path parameter and 'body' is a request payload, but it doesn't provide any detail about what the body should contain or what the id refers to beyond the resource name. The instruction to read the GET or /schema endpoint is helpful but shifts the burden to the agent rather than documenting the parameters.

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 and resource: 'Delete api custom-metadata-providers' and includes the exact DELETE endpoint. It clearly identifies the operation as deleting a custom metadata provider by ID. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling delete tools, though the resource name is unique enough.

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 implies usage by showing the DELETE endpoint and the id path parameter. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the resource-specific naming and endpoint make the context reasonably clear. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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