businesses_delete_business

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat that. However, it adds no context about what is destroyed (e.g., cascading effects, irreversibility, permission requirements), which would be expected for a destructive operation. It merely states the action.

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?

While the description is very short and front-loaded, it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. It lacks essential context, making it ineffective despite its brevity.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is drastically incomplete. It fails to mention consequences, required permissions, or the meaning of businessId, leaving the agent without enough information to call it correctly.

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 has zero description coverage for businessId, and the description provides no explanation of what businessId refers to or how to obtain it. The description does nothing to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 'Delete Business' is essentially a restatement of the tool name with no added detail. It lacks any differentiation from siblings like businesses_get_business or other delete tools, and provides no scope or specificity beyond the obvious action.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions (e.g., whether the business must be unlinked first). The description does not help an agent decide between this and businesses_update_business or other delete tools.

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