delete_firm_user_mapping

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies mutation, the description does not reveal whether the operation is irreversible, requires specific permissions, or has cascading effects. The output schema exists but is not referenced, so the agent cannot infer the response format or success/failure indicators. This is a significant gap for a deletion tool.

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 with one sentence and no redundant information. It front-loads the action and resource. However, for a delete tool, it could benefit from a brief behavioral note without sacrificing conciseness.

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 that there are no annotations and only one parameter, the description should be more complete. It fails to mention that deletion is permanent, that the mapping must exist, or what the output schema contains. For a tool that can have significant side effects, this lack of context leaves the agent underinformed.

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 description mentions 'by ID' but does not clarify what the mapping_id represents, how to obtain it, or its format. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it merely repeats the parameter name. With only one parameter, it is slightly better than having multiple undocumented parameters, but still lacking substantive guidance.

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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'a firm user mapping', with the criterion 'by ID'. This effectively distinguishes it from retrieval or update tools (e.g., get_firm_user_mapping, update_firm_user_mapping). However, it does not explain what a firm user mapping is, which slightly reduces clarity for an unfamiliar agent.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_firm_user_mapping or get_firm_user_mapping. The agent is not told that this is for removing a mapping, while update is for modifying, and get is for retrieval. The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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