Supprimer un(e) paiement

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses irreversibility with no trash, the conditional elicitation/confirmation behavior, the refusal return shape, and the 403-avoidance strategy. These are meaningful behavioral details that an agent needs for a destructive call and are not present in the annotations alone.

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 longer than average, but every section earns its place for a destructive operation: purpose, explicit conditions, alternatives, safety checks, confirmation behavior, and return value are clearly labeled and front-loaded. The bullet format and Returns line make the information easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, the description is complete: it covers prerequisites, alternatives, rights checking, irreversible consequences, client-capability-dependent confirmation, and the exact response shape. The output schema exists, yet the description still explains how to interpret `deleted`, which fully equips an agent to invoke and handle the tool 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 coverage is 100%, since the single required `id` parameter is documented in the schema with type and pattern. The description adds the operational hint to verify the ID with boond_payments_get first, but it does not substantially extend the parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Supprime définitivement un(e) paiement de BoondManager'. It clearly identifies the operation as destructive deletion and distinguishes it from boond_payments_update, making the purpose unambiguous among the many payment-related sibling tools.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: only on explicit user request and after verifying the ID with boond_payments_get. It also names the alternative boond_payments_update for non-destructive state changes and recommends checking rights with boond_rights_get, which is strong actionable routing.

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