delete_business

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' implies destructiveness, but the description does not state whether deletion is irreversible, whether it cascades to dependent data (invoices, transactions, chains), or whether any confirmation is required. This is a significant transparency gap for a destructive operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the action, the resource, and the identifier mechanism. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it extremely economical and well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is fairly complete. It tells what to delete and how (by UUID). However, because there are no annotations, it misses details like irreversibility or side effects, but these are more relevant to behavioral transparency. For basic invocation, it is sufficient.

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 covers the sole parameter (business_id) with 100% coverage, including a description ('UUID of the business context to delete'). The tool description only adds the phrase 'by UUID,' which merely reiterates what the schema already states. Hence, the description provides minimal incremental value over the structured 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 states a clear verb ('Delete'), a specific resource ('business context'), and the identifier mechanism ('by UUID'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_business, update_business, get_business, and list_businesses, so an agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it warn when not to use it (e.g., 'Use this only when you want to permanently remove a business context'). It relies on the inherent meaning of 'Delete' to convey its use case, but offers no exclusions or conditions that might help an agent decide between this and a similar operation.

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