delete_flight

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

Annotations already flag destructive/non-idempotent, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: a write-permission prerequisite, a mandatory confirmation-equals-flight_id safeguard, the fact that manual=true swaps in a different deletion action, and that the authenticated account is the implicit owner. That is a meaningful safety and mechanics disclosure for a destructive tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and hard prerequisite, which is the right order for a destructive tool. The final sentence about implicit owner omits ownerUserId is somewhat implementation-flavored, and the mid-sentence line break is slightly awkward, but nothing is wasteful.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations plus description together cover the safety profile, prerequisites, and the manual variant. Only minor gaps remain, such as what happens to related subscriptions or tickets when a flight is removed.

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 0%, so the description must carry the param burden and largely does: confirmation must equal flight_id, manual selects deleteManualFlightAction, and ownerUserId is deliberately omitted in favor of the authenticated account. Flight ID format and the consequence of a mismatch are still unspecified, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove a flight') plus scope ('from this account'), and explicitly rules out the most confusable sibling ('This is not archive'). An agent can distinguish delete_flight from set_flight_archived without consulting either schema.

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?

Gives explicit prerequisites ('Requires writes enabled and confirmation equal to flight_id') and disambiguates from archive deletion, plus the manual=true routing rule. It never names the archive sibling tool directly, but the exclusion is unambiguous enough to guide selection.

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