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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds important behavior beyond the annotations by disclosing the referential-integrity guard and the failure mode: referenced clients are refused and the blocking documents are listed.

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 definition is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the key constraint. Every phrase contributes useful information, with no redundant restatement of the title or sibling names.

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 one-parameter destructive tool, the description supplies the essential invocation context: what is deleted, the referential-integrity precondition, and the refusal behavior. The annotations already cover the destructive and non-idempotent nature, so no material gap remains for correct agent use.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented as 'Client name or id, exactly as client_list shows it.' The description adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries this burden.

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 the specific verb 'Delete' with the resource 'client' and narrows scope to 'one stored client that nothing refers to.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as client_add and client_list without requiring the schema to be opened.

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 clearly states the condition under which deletion is allowed and explicitly says deletion is refused when the client is referenced by invoices, quotes, credit notes, purchase orders, deposits, statements, or schedules. It does not name an alternative tool, but the when-not condition is unusually specific.

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