spv_request_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the eligibility restriction that answered requests are exempt and retain history — a non-obvious behavioral rule not present in annotations or schema.

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 the scope restriction in parentheses. Zero waste, no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 simple two-parameter delete with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition gives enough to act: what is deleted, and what is protected. The only omission is requestId semantics, which is a minor but real gap.

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 only 50%: companyId is documented but requestId has no description anywhere. The description does not explain what a requestId is, where to obtain it, or how companyId's env-var override interacts with it, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb (delete) plus resource (SPV request record) with an added scope qualifier: only pending or failed requests. That scope constraint distinguishes it from list/prepare siblings without naming them, so it stops just short of a 5.

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 parenthetical 'answered requests keep their history' functions as an implicit when-not: the agent learns this tool is only valid for pending/failed records. No sibling is named as an alternative, but the eligibility condition is explicit.

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