ghl_course_delete_offer

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 description's obligation is lower; it still adds real context by naming the required token type, OAuth scope, and mandatory Version: v3 header. It stops short of saying whether deletion is recoverable or what happens to existing enrollments.

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 useful information (action, auth, version header, endpoint) is present, but it is padded: 'COURSES API' banner, a redundant 'Delete Offer' line restating the title, and the courses.write requirement stated three times in different phrasings.

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 two-parameter delete with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs to invoke it correctly: required token type, scope, API version, and endpoint. Missing only the irreversible-deletion note and the stale productId reference, which should be removed.

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 offerId and locationId are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description only restates that {offerId} identifies the offer, and its opening line about the '{productId} path parameter' references a parameter that does not exist in this tool's schema, adding noise rather than clarity.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a membership offer') and the endpoint DELETE /courses/offers/{offerId}, which cleanly separates it from sibling offer tools (get/update/list/create_offer). The agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Prerequisites are spelled out (Location/Sub-Account token, courses.write scope, Version: v3 header), which tells the agent when the call can succeed. However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it warn that the offer is permanently removed or what to do if the offer has enrollments.

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