Delete pending acquisition

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already flags destructiveness, and the description adds important behavioral detail: the dry-run default and the need to pass confirm:true for actual execution. This goes beyond the annotation by explaining the safety mechanism, which is crucial for an agent to use correctly.

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 two short sentences (plus a final clause) that front-load the purpose, then behavior, then destructiveness. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 3-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, the pending-only scope, and the dry-run safety behavior. It does not mention what happens to related records or the return format, but given the tool's simplicity and the schema's completeness, it is sufficiently contextual.

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 describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the default dry-run behavior for confirm, which is not explicitly stated in the schema's description ('Omit or false returns a DRY RUN preview'), but the description's phrasing reinforces and clarifies the default.

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 'Delete a PENDING (uncommitted) acquisition draft' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_acquisition_item and delete_disposition. It also clarifies that only pending acquisitions are affected, which differentiates it from operations on committed acquisitions.

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 implies the tool is for pending/uncommitted acquisitions only, providing clear context about when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'do not use for committed acquisitions', so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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