delete_record

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is covered. The description adds 'soft delete' as behavioral context beyond the annotations, which is useful, but it does not describe consequences such as reversibility, visibility in future list_records calls, or associated side effects.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and immediately clarifies the soft-delete behavior terms. Every word earns its place.

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 two-param tool with annotations and a 100%-documented schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it is thin on operational context: it does not explain what 'soft delete' means for downstream behavior, what happens to related data, or when this tool should be preferred over other delete operations. Given the absence of an output schema)Skip

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 100%: record_id is clearly documented as 'The UUID of the record to delete' and farm_id is described as optional with a default. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond saying the tool deletes a record, so it relies on the schema, which is acceptable.

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 and resource: 'Delete (soft delete) a record.' The parenthetical adds the important nuance that deletion is not a hard delete stolen from the name. It is not as strong as explicitly differentiating from sibling delete tools, but it is unambiguous about what the tool operates on.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as delete_animal, delete_group, or update_record. There is no mention of prerequisites, sequencing, or conditions under which soft-delete is appropriate, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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