Delete correspondent

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

The annotations already mark this as destructive, but the description adds important behavioral detail beyond that: the deletion is permanent, documents retain their data but lose the correspondent assignment, the assignment cannot be restored, and user confirmation is required. This fully discloses the key side effects and irreversibility.

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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action, then immediately states the most important side effect and the user-confirmation requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: permanence, non-deletion of documents, irreversible loss of assignment, and user confirmation. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to understand what invoking this tool will do.

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 one required 'id' parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explicitly explain what this id identifies or how to obtain it. The parameter's role is inferable from the tool name and the sentence 'delete a correspondent,' but the description itself adds no direct parameter-level meaning. Low schema coverage required more compensation than this.

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 and resource: 'Permanently delete a correspondent.' It also differentiates from deleting documents by explicitly saying documents are not deleted, only the assignment is lost. This is a specific verb-plus-resource statement with no ambiguity.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when a correspondent should be permanently deleted. It also gives an explicit precondition by instructing to confirm with the user first. It does not name alternative tools such as update_correspondent, but the side-effect warning helps distinguish it from document deletion.

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