ghl_brand_board_delete_voice

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: a Sub-Account (location) token is required and the OAuth scope brand-boards/voices.write is needed, which an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and resource, then the endpoint, auth requirement and scope. Slightly redundant to repeat the title 'Delete Brand Voice' immediately before 'Delete a brand voice by ID', and the version-header/source metadata is boilerplate, but overall it is compact and scannable.

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 two-parameter delete with no output schema and annotations already covering destructive behavior, the description supplies everything needed: endpoint, required token type, and required scope. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, with both locationId and brandVoiceId documented in the schema. The description only adds 'by ID' and the endpoint path template, which mildly clarifies that both IDs are path segments but does not add semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Delete a brand voice by ID') and the name/endpoint make clear it targets the brand-voice sub-resource, distinguishing it from ghl_brand_board_get_voice and ghl_brand_board_update_voice. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'Delete ... by ID' phrasing and the endpoint path, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., update_voice or set_default_voice), and no caution about irreversibility. The auth/scope notes help but are not usage routing.

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