Delete premises identifier

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the target is a premises identifier on a root premises and does not disclose reversibility, permissions, or side effects beyond what the annotations already state.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the destructive verb first and zero filler. It is well structured and appropriately sized, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere.

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 mutation with three parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin. It should at least identify the affected parameters or state the scope of the removal, but an agent cannot call this correctly from the text alone.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description names no parameters. It alludes to entities ('premises identifier', 'root premises') that vaguely map to identifier_id and location_id/farm_id, but it clarifies neither their format, their optionality, nor the role of farm_id.

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?

States a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('premises identifier from a root premises'), which lets an agent distinguish it from add_premises_identifier and update_premises_identifier. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the scope is clear enough to place the tool.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. Nothing tells the agent how this differs from remove_identifier (animal identifiers) or when a premises identifier should be detached, so the routing burden is entirely on the name.

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