Remove a recipient

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the operation is a reversible-sounding deactivation, in-flight payments are not cancelled, and a human approval step is involved.

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?

Three very short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the consequence boundary, then the approval condition. No filler and no repetition of the title or 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 two-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the important behavioral facts (soft delete, existing payments preserved, human approval). It does not say whether the deactivation can be undone or what a failure looks like, which is a minor remaining 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 100%, so the schema already documents both 'id' and 'confirm'. The description's line 'A person approves it' gestures at the confirm parameter but does not explain what confirm does or when to set it, so it adds little meaning 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Deactivate') with a specific resource ('a saved recipient') and explicitly clarifies that this is a soft deactivation rather than a hard delete, which resolves the mismatch between the tool name 'delete_recipient' and its actual effect. It also states the scope of the effect (no new payments; existing ones unaffected), letting an agent distinguish it from update_recipient without opening a 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?

The condition for use is implied by the stated effect ('so no new payment can be set up to it'), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative such as update_recipient for modifying rather than deactivating. An agent can infer the intent, but nothing tells it when to prefer a different sibling.

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