Delete User Policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a destructive operation. It never says the deletion is irreversible, whether related riders/claims are affected, what authorization is required, or what the response confirms – the 'terminated only' precondition is the single behavioral fact conveyed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but its brevity comes from omission rather than efficiency. For a destructive mutation tool this is under-specification, not concision.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but a three-parameter destructive tool with a security PIN input and zero annotations needs far more: authorization context, reversibility, side effects, and the meaning of 'pin'. The description supplies none of this.

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% across three parameters, and the description names none of them. user_id and policy_id can be inferred from the tool name, but the optional 'pin' parameter (nullable, default null) is completely unexplained in both schema and description, leaving an opaque security-sensitive input.

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 ('해지한 보험 계약을 삭제합니다' – deletes a terminated insurance contract) and adds a real scoping constraint that only terminated/cancelled contracts qualify. It doesn't refer to the tool's own name (user policy vs insurance contract) or distinguish it from siblings like list_user_policies or register_user_policy, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 only guidance implied is that the contract must already be terminated, which is useful but incomplete. There is no statement of prerequisites, permissions, when to choose deletion over alternatives, or what to do if the policy is still active.

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