Soft delete a customer in KikoBooks by setting them inactive, preserving their data for future reference.
Delete (deactivate) a customer in KikoBooks. This performs a soft delete by setting the customer as inactive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| customer_id | Yes | The Customer ID to delete (soft delete — sets inactive) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add genuine behavioral value by disclosing that this is a soft delete that sets the customer inactive rather than removing the record. However, it omits permission requirements, whether the customer can be reactivated, and whether it still appears in search_customers results.
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, zero waste, with the core action and its soft-delete semantics front-loaded. Nothing is padded or redundant.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics (soft delete/deactivate). The main gap is the absence of any recoverability or permission context, which would be useful given no annotations exist.
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% and the single parameter is documented in the schema itself, including the soft-delete note. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (customer in KikoBooks) and even clarifies the semantic meaning of the verb with '(deactivate)'. It does not need to differentiate from siblings since the resource is unique among the delete_* tools, though it could note how it differs from update_customer.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_customer to set a customer inactive, nor any prerequisites or warnings. The agent must infer the usage context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.