crm_delete_object

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. 'Delete' clearly indicates a destructive operation, but it doesn't specify whether deletions are permanent, reversible, or have cascading effects on related data. No information about authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling is included.

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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient for quick understanding without unnecessary elaboration.

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 with 2 parameters (0% schema coverage) and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address critical context like what happens after deletion, error scenarios, or how to identify which objects can be deleted. The description leaves too many open questions for safe tool invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but provides no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'objectType' represents (the enum values like 'companies', 'contacts'), what 'objectId' should contain, or how these parameters work together. The description adds zero value beyond what's in the bare schema.

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 a CRM object' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (CRM object), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'crm_batch_delete_objects' or 'crm_delete_association', but it's specific enough to convey the core 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'crm_batch_delete_objects' for multiple deletions or 'crm_delete_association' for removing relationships. There's no mention of prerequisites, permissions required, or error conditions that might affect usage decisions.

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