zda_delete_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the preview-then-delete behavior via the 'GUARDED' mechanism, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention irreversibility, permissions, or error conditions, leaving some gaps.

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 very concise with two sentences, front-loading the primary action (delete) and immediately providing the critical usage pattern. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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 simplicity of a delete operation (no output schema), the description covers the core behavior and the guarded approach. It omits details about what happens after delete (e.g., immediate effect, cascading) and error handling, but the preview pattern reduces the need for such details.

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?

The schema covers 50% of parameters (id has a description). The description adds semantic value by explaining that require_confirm controls preview vs. delete, which is not evident from the schema alone. For id, it relies on the schema, which is sufficient.

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 clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'Zendesk view'. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like zda_get_view and zda_list_views by focusing on deletion, and the 'GUARDED' prefix emphasizes the deletion action.

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 a clear usage pattern: call without require_confirm to preview, then call with require_confirm:true to apply. This guides the agent on how to safely use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare with other delete tools, which are differentiated by the object type.

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