shelf_delete_booking

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's job is to add context. It does: 'Permanently' and 'Irreversible' quantify the destructiveness beyond the boolean hint, and the confirmation instruction is actionable guidance not present in annotations. No return or error behavior is described.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the destructive nature front-loaded before the caution. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential safety caveat. It leaves gaps on what happens to a booking's attached assets and whether the call errors on an unknown ID, which matters for an irreversible operation.

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 description never mentions either parameter, and bookingId (the required one) has no schema description at all; only orgId carries documentation. With schema description coverage at 50% and the required parameter undocumented, the description should compensate and does not.

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 (delete) and resource (booking), with the qualifier 'Permanently' that implicitly separates it from shelf_cancel_booking and shelf_archive_booking in the sibling list. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so differentiation still requires the agent to infer from the adverb.

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?

'Confirm with the user first' gives one concrete precondition for invoking. However, it never states when to choose permanent deletion versus the sibling shelf_cancel_booking or shelf_archive_booking, which is the real routing question for this family of tools.

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