delete_role

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only restates that the operation is a mutation and deletion, without noting irreversibility, authorization requirements, or effects on related entities.

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 compact and avoids redundant prose. It front-loads the operation type and required variable, and the example placeholder provides a quick template, though the wording is terse.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify return behavior, side effects, and multi-tenant context. It only supplies the id and domain label, leaving the caller to infer what happens after deletion or how customer_slug is used.

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%, so the schema fully documents id and customer_slug. The description adds an example variable block but no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score.

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 identifies the operation as a deleteRole mutation within Access Groups and requires an id, making the tool's purpose clear. However, it never states in plain language that it deletes a role and does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling delete tools.

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 such as create_role, update_role, or delete_access_group. The Access Groups prefix implies a domain but gives no selection criteria or exclusions.

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