client_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a client' signals mutation and likely irreversibility, but it does not explain side effects, cascading deletions, permission requirements, or whether the operation can fail. A destructive tool with no annotation coverage needs more 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 very short and front-loaded, but it is more under-specified than helpfully concise. While no words are wasted, the lack of behavioral or usage context means brevity comes at the expense of completeness.

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?

Although the tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, it is a destructive operation with no annotations. The description does not address deletion impact, irreversibility, or possible failure modes, so an agent has limited information to safely invoke it.

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?

The schema already covers the only parameter, client_id, with a 'Client ID' description at 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how the parameter is used, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('a client'), making the core purpose immediately clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like client_add, client_update, and client_get by operation type, though it does not add any scope or caveat details.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no caution about consequences. The operation type itself implies deletion, but the description does not clarify contexts such as whether a client must exist first or what happens to associated resources.

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