Delete Equipment (Company)

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description reinforces with 'permanently deletes' and 'cannot be undone', which adds emphasis but no new behavioral insight beyond annotations.

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 five sentences with redundancy ('permanently delete' and 'This cannot be undone' repeated). It could be more concise by merging the first two sentences and removing the duplicate consequence statement.

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 delete operation, the description covers purpose, parameters, and permanence. However, it lacks any mention of response (e.g., returns 204 No Content) and does not differentiate from project-level equipment deletion. Given the simple nature of the tool, it meets basic needs but leaves gaps.

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 schema covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by mapping them to API structure ('URL path parameter', 'JSON request body field') and explicitly listing required params. This extra context helps the agent understand parameter roles.

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 tool deletes Equipment records at the company level, using the verb 'delete' and specifying the resource 'Equipment (Company)'. It is distinct from many sibling tools like bulk_delete_equipment, update_equipment, etc.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bulk_delete_managed_equipment, delete_equipment_project). It does not mention any prerequisites or contexts where this tool is appropriate or not.

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