wetrack_delete_ticket_priority

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly says this is a soft-delete (sets inactive, data retained), which goes beyond the verb 'delete' and clarifies non-destructive behavior. It also mentions failure condition when in use, which is valuable behavioral context. Missing details on permissions or response, but given the tool's simplicity, this is sufficient.

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 short and to the point: two sentences explaining the behavior and the failure condition, plus a one-line parameter description. No wasted words. The key qualifier 'soft-delete' is front-loaded, and the critical constraint is stated immediately after.

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?

With one parameter, an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the necessary context: what the tool does, the failure condition, and parameter semantics. It doesn't state permissions, but for a soft-delete operation that fails safely, this is adequate. The output schema likely describes the response, so no need to explain return values.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain the parameter. It does explain 'priority_id' as 'The priority ID to deactivate', which matches the schema property name. It adds minimal extra semantic value (just 'to deactivate'), but that's helpful. Given the parameter is self-explanatory and there's only one, baseline 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 clearly states the action (soft-delete) and the resource (ticket priority), and notes the behavior (sets inactive, data retained). It is distinct from other priority operations like create/update, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling list/get tools as alternatives, but the verb and soft-delete qualifier are specific enough.

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?

It implies the tool is for deactivating a priority, and states a critical constraint: it will fail if active tickets use this priority. This guides the agent to check for active tickets before calling, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives when priority is in use, but the constraint is clear.

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