Delete pending disposition

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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by disclosing the dry-run default and the need for confirm:true. This is critical safety information not present in the annotations, providing the agent with accurate execution semantics.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. Every phrase earns its place, and the destructive warning is integrated efficiently.

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 simple delete tool, the description covers the essential behavior (pending scope, dry-run, confirm). However, with no output schema, the dry-run preview's return format is undisclosed, a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 baseline is 3. The description merely echoes the confirm behavior already fully described in the schema, adding no new meaning for id or auditUser.

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 ('Delete'), the resource ('disposition draft'), and the scope ('PENDING (uncommitted)'), distinguishing it from committed dispositions. It also differentiates from sibling tools like remove_disposition_items by focusing on the entire draft rather than individual items.

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: use for pending/uncommitted drafts, dry-run by default, and confirm to execute. It implies when not to use (committed dispositions) but does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions.

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