ghl_course_delete_category

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description isn't obliged to re-explain that. It adds value by disclosing auth requirements (courses.write scope, location token) and the raw endpoint/version header. It does not disclose downstream behavior such as whether deletion is permanent, what happens to lessons under the category, or error conditions.

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?

Content is front-loaded: API name, verb+resource, auth requirement, then technical endpoint metadata. Minor waste from repeating the token/scope requirement three times ('courses.write', 'Requires a Sub-Account (location) token', 'OAuth scopes: courses.write'), but overall restrained and easy to scan.

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?

With only three well-described parameters and annotations covering destructiveness and idempotency, the description supplies enough to invoke it correctly (endpoint, path param semantics, token/scope requirements). The absence of output schema is fine since delete returns nothing meaningful, though cascade/error behavior for the deleted category is unaddressed.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning by clarifying that the {productId} path parameter is the course (product) id, which the schema only labels 'Product id'. It provides no extra hint for locationId/categoryId 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 tool states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a category') and adds scope by clarifying that '{productId}' is the course (product) id, which distinguishes this nested category deletion from the top-level course delete. It does not explicitly name the sibling it is not (e.g., ghl_course_delete), but the resource is unambiguous.

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 lists prerequisites needed to call it ('Requires a Location token with courses.write', 'Requires a Sub-Account (location) token'), which is useful context. However, it never says when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to call it (e.g., alternatives for removing a category, or constraints on deleting non-empty categories), so usage is only implicitly derivable from the verb.

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