hires_delete_company

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that it deletes a company but does not reveal side effects, whether deletion is reversible, permission requirements, or impact on related data. The existence of a 'restore_company' sibling is not referenced, leaving uncertainty about whether this is a soft or hard delete.

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 short sentences front-load the core action and then add context. No unnecessary words—very concise and well-structured.

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 operation, the description is too thin. It lacks details about consequences, reversibility, or return behavior. Even though the tool is simple, the absence of behavioral information leaves the agent uncertain about the operation's impact.

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?

The schema already fully covers the only parameter, 'id' (described as 'Company ID'), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the action: 'Delete a company.' The verb and resource are specific, and the phrase 'lifecycle control in partner tenancy management' provides domain context, distinguishing it from sibling company tools (create/get/update/restore).

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?

The description says 'Use for lifecycle control in partner tenancy management,' which indicates a clear use case. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, such as contrast with hires_restore_company, so there is room for more explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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