Delete resource subscription

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond that: the authorization scope needed and the explicit per-call confirmation requirement, which an agent must honor before invoking.

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, then clauses on scope and confirmation. No filler or repetition; every sentence carries an operative constraint, though the endpoint and scope phrasing is slightly dense.

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 destructive, non-idempotent, open-world delete with no output schema, the description supplies the key auth scope and confirmation requirements. It is adequate, though it says nothing about return behavior or failure modes.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description only touches on the confirmation requirement generically and adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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 ("Delete resource subscription") and even cites the underlying native DELETE endpoint, so an agent knows exactly what this does. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling delete tools like delete_product or delete_variant, so it stops 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?

It notes the required scope (view_sales for sale events, provider authorization otherwise) and a per-call confirmation requirement, which are useful preconditions. But it never says when to choose this over an alternative or when not to use it, leaving usage only implied.

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