freeagent_delete_estimate

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is an irreversible-feeling mutation. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't state that deletion is permanent, whether related records are affected, what error is returned for a missing or already-deleted estimate, or what a success response looks like. For a destructive, no-output-schema tool this is a meaningful gap.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is sized appropriately, though that brevity is part of why behavioral and usage context is thin.

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 delete operating on a single ID with no output schema, an agent needs to know irreversibility, any state prerequisites, and failure behavior. Annotations cover only the safety classification, and the description supplies none of the remaining operational context.

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?

There is a single required parameter whose schema entry is fully described ('The estimate ID') with a pattern constraint. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies; the description adds no format, source, or lookup guidance for obtaining a valid estimate_id.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Delete an estimate'), and the resource noun distinguishes it from siblings such as freeagent_delete_invoice, freeagent_delete_credit_note and freeagent_delete_expense. It does not explicitly state its scope relative to freeagent_get_estimate or freeagent_update_estimate, but the verb does that work implicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance: nothing says whether the estimate must be in draft vs sent/approved status, whether an alternative like cancelling exists, or what to do if the ID is unknown. The agent is left to infer everything from the name alone.

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