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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and successfully discloses the key risk: deletion is blocked when linked documents exist, which would otherwise be orphaned, and force overrides this. It doesn't mention required permissions, irreversibility, or expected response, but it covers the most important safety nuance an agent needs.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the critical refusal condition. 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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and the main behavioral gotcha. It could be more complete by noting irreversibility or permissions, but the essential information for a correct call is present.

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 both parameters (id, force) are already well documented. The description reinforces the force condition but adds no new syntax, format, or meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a supplier by ID'), making the operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling delete tools, but the name and text leave no confusion about which resource is affected.

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 implies when to use the tool (to delete a supplier) and gives one when-not condition: linked documents cause refusal unless force is true. However, it doesn't reference finding the ID via search_suppliers in the description (only in the schema) or suggest alternatives like updating the supplier instead of deleting.

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