Anonymize a customer, irreversibly (write)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses irreversibility, the absence of de-anonymization, the exact data erased and kept, the server's refusal behavior for due invoices, and the risk of targeting the wrong customer. Every behavioral aspect is transparent.

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?

Although lengthy, every sentence serves a purpose: irreversibility, scope, GDPR rationale, uniqueness, usage constraints, confirmation requirement, and prerequisite. The 'WRITE, AND IRREVERSIBLE' opening is a strong front-loaded signal. No redundancy; thoroughness is justified for a destructive operation.

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 irreversible operation, the description is complete: it covers action, effect, prerequisites, warnings, and operational guidance. No output schema exists, but as a write operation this is acceptable. An agent has all necessary information to safely and correctly invoke this tool.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant extra meaning by emphasizing that the reference is the sole identifier and that a typo anonymizes a different customer, thereby stressing the parameter's criticality and caution required. This elevates it above baseline.

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 the precise action: erases personal data (name and email) of a ProAbono customer while retaining invoices and subscription history. It clearly identifies the resource and verb, and explicitly distinguishes itself as the only irreversible tool on the server, differentiating it from all siblings.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: use for GDPR erasure requests, never for test data cleanup, and requires developer confirmation before calling. It also states a precondition (no due invoices) and warns against misidentification due to typo. This is comprehensive when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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