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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses the required permission, the non-writing first call, the exact confirmation flow, token expiry and single-use behavior, and that a confirm boolean is ignored. These details are consistent with destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false.

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 dense but front-loaded: it starts with permission and purpose, then explains the two-step confirmation flow in order. Every sentence adds useful operational or safety information without filler.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, it covers the critical safety and confirmation behavior well. It could be more complete by stating what the second call returns and where customer_id comes from, but the core call behavior is clear.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It thoroughly explains confirm_token, including how to pass it and that it expires and works once, but it does not explain customer_id beyond naming it in the purpose sentence, leaving its source or format ambiguous.

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 in this organization.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_item, delete_supplier, and bulk_delete_items by resource scope.

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 gives clear operational context, including the required items.delete permission and the two-step confirm_token procedure. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or alternatives such as bulk deletion, so it falls short of a 5.

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