merit_delete_payment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and it does a good job: it explicitly labels the operation 'DESTRUCTIVE' and states 'There is no undo', disclosing the irreversible nature. It does not mention permissions or side effects on related data, but for a single-parameter delete operation the core behavioral risk is well covered.

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 short sentences with no filler: a destructive warning, the action and endpoint, the parameter identity, and an irreversibility note. Every word earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential knowledge needed to select and invoke it: what it deletes, the endpoint, the id, and the irreversible consequence. It doesn't specify error behavior or preconditions, but those are minor for such a simple 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 schema already documents the only parameter as 'Payment GUID (required)' with 100% coverage, so the description's restatement 'id is the payment GUID' adds no new meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does all the heavy lifting and the description merely echoes it.

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 states a specific action ('delete a Merit Aktiva payment') with the resource and the exact endpoint, making it unmistakably distinct from sibling payment tools like list or create. The leading 'DESTRUCTIVE' flag plus 'There is no undo' reinforces the intent. No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 clearly implies use this tool when you need to permanently delete an existing payment, and the warning 'There is no undo' advises caution. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5, but the context is clear and there are no misleading exclusions.

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