crm_delete_object

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' clearly indicates a destructive operation, the description provides no additional context about permanence, recovery options, side effects, or what happens to associated data. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in safety information.

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 at just three words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the essential information (delete operation) and contains no unnecessary elaboration. This represents optimal conciseness for such a basic description.

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 required parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'CRM object', provide examples, describe the deletion process, or mention any constraints. The minimal description leaves too many open questions for safe and effective use.

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%, meaning neither parameter has descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about what 'objectType' or 'objectId' represent, their formats, or valid values beyond what's in the enum. For a tool with 2 required parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

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 explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'crm_batch_delete_objects' or 'crm_delete_association', but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'crm_batch_delete_objects' for bulk operations or other deletion tools in the sibling list. The description offers no context about prerequisites, permissions needed, or typical use cases for this specific deletion method.

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