delete_company

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Delete a company by ID' without mentioning side effects (e.g., cascading deletes, irreversibility, or required permissions). A delete action is inherently destructive, but the description adds no context beyond that.

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 extremely concise at five words, front-loading the action and resource. While it could benefit from additional context, it contains no fluff and is easy to parse quickly.

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, output schema existence), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose but omits details like return behavior, error cases, or usage context. The output schema likely handles return value description, so the description is just 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description should explain the parameter's meaning and usage. It mentions 'by ID' but does not clarify what type of ID (e.g., integer from where) or any constraints. The parameter 'company_id' is left entirely to its name and type in 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 action ('Delete') and the resource ('a company by ID'), which is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_client' or 'delete_case'. It provides a precise verb and resource identifier.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. For example, it does not warn about related records that may be affected or require prior actions.

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