DELETE /customer/:id (Customer)

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is clear. The description adds the important behavioral constraint that deletion only occurs when no linked records exist. However, it does not disclose what happens if the condition fails (e.g., error response) or any other side effects. With annotations covering the base safety profile, the description provides some additional context but not full 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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and condition. It contains no unnecessary words and is efficiently structured for quick understanding.

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 simple delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core action and precondition. However, it lacks information about error behavior if the condition isn't met, or how the result is communicated. Given the tool's simplicity, it is minimally viable but not fully comprehensive.

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?

There is only one parameter 'id' with schema description already covering its purpose (the route parameter). The description does not add any extra meaning or context about the parameter. Since schema coverage is 100%, 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 clearly states the tool deletes a customer, and adds a specific condition (only when no linked records exist). This distinguishes it from other delete tools like delete_contract or delete_person. The verb 'delete' combined with the resource 'customer' is specific and 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?

The description specifies when to use the tool: when there are no linked records (sales, charges, etc.). This provides clear context, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if customer has linked records) or mention alternative tools. However, the condition implicitly guides usage.

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