delete-stl-lead

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

The destructiveHint annotation already flags the destructive nature. The description adds value by specifying the exact DELETE endpoint and the required stl:write scope, which gives the agent useful context about the operation's side effects and authorization needs. It does not mention error behavior, but the annotation covers the core safety warning.

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 a single, tight sentence with the core action front-loaded followed by the endpoint and scope. Every piece of information is useful and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 DELETE, the description combined with the schema and destructiveHint provides the necessary resource, method, id, auth scope, and safety signal. It does not describe response shape or edge cases, but an agent can confidently select and invoke the tool with what is provided.

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%: the only parameter, id, is already fully described as a required positive integer lead id. The endpoint's {id} placeholder adds path-location context, but the description does not provide substantive additional semantic 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 starts with 'Delete an STL lead', which is a clear verb+resource statement, and reinforces it with the explicit DELETE endpoint. This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like list-stl-leads and get-stl-lead.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or what conditions should be checked before deleting. The 'Scope: stl:write' line is an authorization requirement, not a selection criterion, and the usage context is only implied by the tool name.

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