delete_envelope

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals permanent deletion, that signed documents and audit logs are removed, that recipient data is anonymized and access is lost, that source documents are untouched, and that the action cannot be undone. This is thorough for a destructive 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 compact and information-dense: the primary action and primary consequence come first, followed by eligibility constraints, then the irreversibility warning. Every sentence carries meaningful information with no redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the behavior, side effects, restrictions, and prerequisite action. Nothing essential for an agent to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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%, with the only parameter 'envelopeId' described. The description adds no further formatting or semantic detail about the parameter itself, but since the schema already documents it, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('envelope'), and immediately clarifies scope: it deletes the envelope plus its produced files (signed documents and audit logs). This differentiates it from siblings like delete_document and void_envelope, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly lists which statuses are eligible ('draft', 'completed', 'expired', 'voided') and tells the agent to 'void an active envelope first', directly pointing to the correct alternative workflow (void_envelope) for active envelopes. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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