delete_customer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a destructive operation. It says nothing about irreversibility, whether related records (invoices, estimates) are cascaded or orphaned, required permissions, or failure behavior when the ID does not exist.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally clean. But the terseness is under-specification rather than discipline for a destructive tool, so it is only marginally appropriate sizing.

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?

A destructive mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter needs the description to cover consequences and side effects, and it covers none. An agent cannot safely predict what happens after this call.

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% and the single parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description only echoes 'by ID', which implies the numeric customerId is the lookup key but adds no format, range, or source-of-truth detail beyond the property name.

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?

States a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a customer'), so an agent can tell it apart from delete_invoice and delete_estimate by resource. It does not, however, contrast itself with any sibling or explain scope (e.g., whether deleting a customer affects their invoices), so it falls short of the top band.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. With siblings like get_customer, update_customer, and delete_invoice in the same namespace, an agent gets no help deciding when this is the right call or what should happen first.

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