salesforce_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates critical traits: the action is permanent and irreversible, which is essential for a destructive operation. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, error handling, or rate limits that would be helpful for complete transparency.

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 description is extremely concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the purpose, and the second provides crucial behavioral warning. It's front-loaded with the core action and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the permanence aspect well but lacks details on authentication needs, error responses, or success indicators. Given the high stakes of deletion, more context on permissions or confirmation mechanisms would improve completeness.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (sobject and id) thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints not covered there. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 clearly states the specific action ('Delete a record') and resource ('from any Salesforce object'), distinguishing it from siblings like create, update, query, and backup tools. It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 implies usage for deletion scenarios but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like salesforce_update for soft deletes or salesforce_backup for data preservation. It provides a caution about permanence but lacks guidance on prerequisites or specific use cases.

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