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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new information beyond that: the delete is a *soft* delete, meaning the record is likely retained/recoverable rather than purged, which materially changes how an agent should weigh the destructive hint. It stops short of saying whether related entities (opportunities, notes, tasks) are affected or what permissions are required.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the qualifier 'soft delete' placed where it will be read. No filler or 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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and a single documented parameter keeps the tool simple. However, for a destructive mutation the description omits cascade/side effects on attached records and any prerequisites or permission requirements, leaving real gaps for a high-consequence operation.

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 a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents 'id'. The description adds no format, source, or lookup guidance (e.g., how to obtain a company ID, whether it accepts an external ID). Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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?

States a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a company from the CRM'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the many sibling delete tools (delete-people-tool, delete-note-tool, delete-opportunity-tool, etc.). It does not, however, contrast with update-company-tool or explain the scope of what 'delete' means for a company record.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives: no mention of when to prefer update-company-tool, no preconditions (does the company need to exist? must it be empty?), and no note about reversibility or restoration. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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