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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds critical behavior: soft-delete semantics, the default refusal due to linked documents, the force override, and the exact effect (moving to bin). This fully discloses side effects and conditions, exceeding what annotations alone convey.

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 well-structured and information-dense, but it is slightly longer than strictly necessary, repeating the phrase 'linked (non-deleted) quotes/invoices' and 'so linked documents aren't orphaned' twice. Still, every sentence carries meaningful information, and the structure is clear.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent needs to know: the action, default behavior, override condition, and an alternative. It lacks only an explicit note about return behavior (e.g., success response), but this is not critical given the tool's simplicity and the sibling context.

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?

The schema already covers both parameters (id and force) with descriptions, so coverage is 100%. The description adds context by explaining the force parameter's purpose and the default behavior, though it does not introduce new parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides. The added context justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 and resource ('Delete a customer by id'), clarifies it is a soft-delete to bin, and explicitly distinguishes itself from delete_clients_bulk by noting matching behavior. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from the sibling tool.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool (default behavior), when to override with force:true, and when to use an alternative (update_client for archiving). It also explains the consequence of the default refusal (preventing orphaned documents), giving the agent clear decision criteria.

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