Delete Company Currency Configuration

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

The annotations already convey destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces that the deletion is permanent and irreversible, which matches the annotation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., if the deletion cascades to other configurations) or authentication requirements. Given the annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 front-loaded with the action but contains redundancy (e.g., 'permanently delete' and 'cannot be undone' are stated twice). It could be more concise without losing clarity. The structure is adequate.

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 simple delete operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides essential information: what it does, required parameter, and irreversibility. It does not describe the response (e.g., 200 vs 404) or error cases, but the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations make this acceptable.

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 input schema provides full description and required status for company_id. The description only restates that company_id is required, adding no extra semantic meaning. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'company currency configuration' and specifies the required company_id. It differentiates from the sibling delete_project_currency_configuration by including 'company' in the title and description. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the project version, so not a 5.

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 states that this tool should be used to permanently delete currency configurations and that the action cannot be undone. It provides no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, such as if a soft delete is needed. The usage is implied but lacks explicit context.

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