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

The annotations already mark the tool as destructive and idempotent, and the description adds important behavioral details: soft-delete to bin, refusal when non-deleted links exist, and force override semantics. This gives the agent a clear picture of side effects 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 concise and front-loaded, with the main action stated first and behavior details efficiently packed into two sentences. No redundant or filler content is present.

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 the moderate complexity of a delete operation, the description provides sufficient context: default behavior, override, soft-delete destination, and the archive alternative. The lack of an output schema is not a gap because the operation's expected side effects are clearly described.

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 covers both parameters fully, so the baseline is high. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema, especially for force, explaining the default false behavior and the reason linked expenses aren't orphaned, which helps the agent choose the correct value.

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 the action: delete a supplier by id with soft-delete behavior. It also distinguishes this tool from the bulk delete and save/archive alternatives by naming delete_suppliers_bulk and save_supplier explicitly.

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 this tool versus alternatives, referencing the bulk counterpart and the archive via save_supplier. It also clarifies the default refusal behavior with linked bills/expenses and how to override it with force:true.

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