delete_opportunity

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses destructive and irreversible nature, the mandatory confirm parameter, and idempotent behavior with exact response format. This gives the agent complete understanding of consequences.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with critical warning, no redundant information. Each word serves a purpose: warning, required parameter, preconditions, idempotency details.

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?

Covers preconditions, behavior, and response. Lacks mention of error cases (e.g., invalid id), but the tool is simple and the description is enough for correct usage. Output schema not needed as response is explicitly described.

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 50% (only confirm described). The description adds context by explaining the purpose of both parameters (id implicitly, confirm explicitly) and their roles in the irreversible action. The response format clarifies what happens after invocation.

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?

Clearly states the tool is for permanent deletion of opportunities, explicitly differentiating it from sibling tools like get_opportunity (read) and update_opportunity (modify). The verb 'delete' combined with 'opportunity' and the warning 'DESTRUCTIVE & IRREVERSIBLE' leaves no ambiguity.

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?

Provides explicit workflow: read opportunity first with get_opportunity, confirm with user, require confirm=true. Mentions idempotent retry. Does not explicitly state when not to use it, but for a delete tool the usage is inherently clear.

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