ashar_delete_customerDelete a customer by ID from the Ashar Exchange system, removing the customer record and returning 204 No Content on success.
Delete a customer by id.
Args:
customer_id (string): the customer id
Returns 204 No Content on success.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| customer_id | Yes | Customer id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description's addition of 'Returns 204 No Content on success' is genuinely useful since no output schema exists, but it omits what is actually destroyed (child wallets, bank accounts, virtual accounts) and whether the deletion is reversible — the most important context for a destructive call.
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 core sentence and return behavior are front-loaded with no filler. The Args block duplicates the schema verbatim, which is mild waste but not harmful.
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?
Return semantics for success are covered, which compensates for the missing output schema. However, for a destructive, open-world deletion the description should mention failure modes (unknown id) and the fate of dependent resources; an agent cannot judge the blast radius from what is written.
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% for the single customer_id parameter, and the description only restates 'the customer id'. Baseline 3 is right; no added meaning such as format, prefix, or where to obtain the id.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a customer') and the identifier used, which separates it from siblings like ashar_delete_customer_wallet or ashar_delete_bank_account by resource scope. It does not explicitly contrast itself with ashar_update_customer or the other customer delete variants, but the name plus description are unambiguous.
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 on when to use this versus ashar_update_customer, nor any preconditions (must the customer be empty of wallets, bank accounts, virtual accounts?). A line like 'fails if the customer still has active wallets/transfers' would be needed for a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.