clm_site_equipment_command_delete_unplanned_equipment

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

The description goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by clarifying that the deletion is a soft-delete, that the record is marked as deleted, that the timeline entry is removed, and that an event is logged. These side effects are valuable behavioral disclosures not present in the annotations.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the core action and then lists relevant side effects. Every clause earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 low-complexity tool with one parameter, an output schema, and a destructive annotation, the description is mostly complete. The main gap is that parameter semantics are not described, and the schema itself provides no description coverage.

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%, and the description does not explain that UnplannedEquipmentId identifies the usage record to delete. The parameter name is self-explanatory to some degree, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('soft-deletes') and a precise resource ('unplanned equipment usage record'), and clearly distinguishes this from related tools like delete_equipment or discard_equipment_booking. It states exactly what the tool does and what effects it has.

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 makes it clear that the tool targets unplanned equipment usage records, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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