ghl_payment_custom_provider_delete

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true, but the description expands on what destructive means: 'Any in-flight or future payment flows depending on it will fail.' This adds critical behavioral context beyond the annotation flag. Also includes OAuth scopes. However, no output schema is mentioned, which is acceptable for a delete operation.

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 description is reasonably concise, front-loading the purpose and key consequence in the first sentence. Subsequent lines add endpoint and OAuth scopes, which are somewhat redundant but not excessive. Could be slightly tighter but overall efficient.

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 delete operation with no output schema, the description covers the effect (provider removal, payment flow failure) and includes endpoint details. It does not explicitly state the response format, but the behavior is adequately described. Annotations provide idempotentHint for retries. Completeness is good 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents locationId with example and description. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding 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 description clearly states it 'permanently removes the custom payment provider integration itself (not just its config)', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from siblings like ghl_payment_custom_provider_create_config by explicitly noting it's not just config deletion. The consequence for payment flows further clarifies scope.

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 explains when to use (to permanently remove integration) and warns about consequences. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives (e.g., disconnect_config, update_capabilities). The guideline is implicit but lacks comparative context.

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