ghl_marketplace_delete_charge

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 non-structured context: a Sub-Account (location) token is required, only OAuth access tokens work (Private Integration Tokens rejected), and the charges.write scope is needed — exactly the auth friction an agent would otherwise hit at call time. It stops short of saying what happens to the wallet balance or whether the deletion is recoverable.

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 purpose, then endpoint and auth constraints in four short lines with no filler. The 'source: v3/marketplace-v3.json' provenance tag is the one line that does not help an agent decide or invoke.

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 single-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: endpoint, auth model, token type restriction, and required scope, while annotations cover destructiveness and idempotency. The only real gap is the consequence of deletion (wallet/balance effect), which an agent might want before firing a destructive call.

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% and the single chargeId parameter is documented in the schema with an example ("charge_123"), so baseline 3 applies. The description adds only the path placeholder {chargeId}, no format or sourcing guidance 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Delete a wallet charge") and pins it further with the exact endpoint DELETE /marketplace/billing/charges/{chargeId}. Among the marketplace siblings (ghl_marketplace_charge, ghl_marketplace_get_charges, ghl_marketplace_get_specific_charge) the delete verb and wallet-charge scope make the target 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?

Usage is only implied by the verb — an agent can infer 'call this to remove an existing charge' — but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on prerequisites such as looking up the charge first, and no named alternative or when-not-to-use condition.

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