Remove Customer

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

Without annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains archiving vs deletion, recoverability, contacts cascade on delete, and history preservation on archive. It also discloses the two-phase process with a conflict response. This is thorough and transparent beyond what annotations would provide.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value. There is no redundancy or fluff. The structure efficiently conveys the removal process and behavioral traits.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description should cover more about return values or error handling. It mentions 'returns a conflict' but does not describe the conflict object structure or any error cases. It also lacks information on permissions or prerequisites. While it covers main behavioral traits, it is not fully comprehensive for a tool with no schema output.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about the two-step process but does not explicitly link parameters to that process. The schema descriptions for mode and resolution are already clear. The description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 removes a customer, specifying two methods: archiving (recoverable) or permanent deletion. It also mentions the two-phase commitment process, distinguishing it from other remove_* tools in the sibling list. The verb 'remove' plus resource 'customer' is specific and informative.

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 provides clear guidance on the two-step usage: first call returns a conflict with options, then the user passes the mode. It implies when to use this tool (when removing a customer). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like update_customer for editing rather than removal. No prerequisites or permission requirements are mentioned.

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