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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, non-idempotent and open-world, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds value beyond that by specifying the human-confirmation protocol and clarifying the authentication model (local WordPress auth, no WooCommerce REST keys required). It does not say what force=false does by default or what happens to orders referencing the customer, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the safety protocol, then the auth context. Every sentence carries information; no filler or repetition.

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, the definition covers confirmation and auth but omits the return value and the default deletion behavior when force is false or absent. An agent knows how to call it safely but not fully what to expect back or what state the customer ends up in.

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 100%, so site_id, customerId, force and confirm are all documented in structured data, setting the baseline at 3. The description only restates the confirm workflow already spelled out in the schema and adds nothing about force semantics, so no credit above baseline.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Deletes a WooCommerce customer"), which is enough to distinguish this from the many wc_delete_* siblings by resource alone. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with adjacent tools like wc_delete_customer_meta, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 one concrete procedural rule — obtain explicit user confirmation before calling with confirm=true — which is real usage guidance. It offers no guidance on when to choose this over an alternative (e.g., updating or trashing a customer) and no preconditions beyond confirmation.

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