delete_d_company_companies_id

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

No annotations provided, and the description offers no behavioral context beyond the action. It doesn't disclose potential irreversible data loss, required permissions, cascade effects, or response details. For a destructive operation, this is a critical omission.

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 short, but it wastes space on redundant HTTP method and route that are already in the tool name. The generic instructions about path_params/query/headers add little. It's not concise in a useful way—it's vague.

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?

Given it's a delete operation with no annotations, no parameter details, and an output schema that likely indicates success/failure, the description is inadequate. The agent cannot determine what to provide or what to expect without probing the API externally.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description only generically says to provide route IDs in path_params, filters in query, headers in headers. It doesn't specify what ID goes in path_params (e.g., company ID), what filters are valid, or any format details. Parameters are completely opaque.

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 the tool deletes a company and provides the HTTP method and route. However, 'company' is vague—could refer to a company entity or other company-related resources. It doesn't distinguish between deleting a company vs. other delete tools like delete_d_company_credentials_id, but the route pattern suggests it targets companies by ID.

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 tool vs. alternatives like get_r_company_companies_id or patch_w_company_companies. It doesn't mention prerequisites, side effects, or use cases. The only hint is the operation and endpoint, which is insufficient.

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