delete_client

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

The destructiveHint annotation already tells the agent this is a destructive operation, so the description's job is to add context such as permanence, cascading effects on linked documents, or required permissions — it supplies none of this. It does not contradict the annotation, but it is a bare restatement of a mutation.

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?

It is short with no filler, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy — there is no front-loaded scope, target, or warning to anchor the call.

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, irreversible-style operation with 50% parameter coverage and no output schema, the description omits the essentials: whether deletion is permanent, what happens to clients referenced by existing documents, and what the call returns or errors on.

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 only 50%: company_id is documented in the schema, but the required id parameter is undocumented anywhere. The description does nothing to compensate, so the agent must guess whether id is a client identifier and what happens if company_id is omitted.

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?

"Elimina un cliente" only restates the tool name (delete_client) in another language; it adds no scope, no constraints, and no differentiation from siblings such as delete_supplier or update_client. An agent learns nothing it could not infer from the identifier alone.

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 on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., update_client to deactivate, or whether related records must be handled first). No preconditions, no exclusions, no mention of a confirmation or recoverability step.

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