Delete API Request

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

Even though destructiveHint=true is already in the annotations, the description goes further by explaining that this is only a soft-delete, that confirmation_text is required in dev/test, that prod blocks the action, and that the response will indicate the remaining request count and softDelete=true. This gives the agent important behavioral context beyond the annotation flags.

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 only two sentences and packs in the key environmental constraints, behavioral nuance, and return-value information. There is no filler aside from the brief 'through the Unfour command bus' phrase, which does not meaningfully hurt clarity.

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?

The description explains the operation's outcome and environment-specific guardrails well, and there is an output schema. However, with 5 parameters and no schema-level descriptions, the omission of confirm and workspaceId makes it incomplete for reliable invocation without additional tooling or user clarification.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description had to carry the parameter semantics load, but it only clarifies confirmation_text. It does not explain the role of confirm, workspaceId, or the dual confirmationText/confirmation_text fields, leaving meaningful ambiguity about what values should be supplied.

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 begins with 'Soft-deletes a saved API request,' clearly identifying the action and the resource. It also distinguishes this from hard deletion and ties the behavior to the Unfour command bus, which differentiates the tool from sibling delete tools like delete_collection.

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 gives clear context on when this tool is usable: dev/test require a confirmation_text, while prod blocks deletion by policy. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools, but for a delete-specific operation the environmental conditions are the key guidance and they are stated clearly.

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