Delete Equipment Type (Company)

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces the permanence ('cannot be undone') and aligns with annotations. No behavioral aspects (e.g., cascading effects on associated equipment) are disclosed, but the description adds context beyond annotations by explicitly stating the irreversibility. No contradiction with 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 repetitive: 'permanently delete' appears twice, and 'This cannot be undone' is stated twice with similar phrasing ('Permanently removes the specified Equipment records. This action cannot be undone.'). This redundancy wastes space and could be more concise. The description could be streamlined without losing clarity.

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?

The tool is simple with two required parameters and no output schema. The description provides the endpoint, API version, and required parameters. It effectively communicates the destructive and irreversible nature. While it could mention consequences for related items, the simplicity of the operation makes this sufficient. Only minor gaps related to error handling or preconditions exist.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions. The description restates that they are required and mentions they are URL path parameters, but does not add significant new meaning. Since schema_description_coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description offers marginal additional value by specifying they are path parameters.

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: deleting an equipment type at the company level. It specifies that deletion is permanent and cannot be undone. The verb 'delete' and resource 'equipment type (Company)' are unambiguous. Given sibling tools like 'delete_equipment_type_project' and 'delete_an_equipment_type', this description distinguishes by noting 'Company' in the title and description, ensuring correct selection.

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 provides basic usage context: 'Use this to permanently delete the specified Equipment records.' It lists required parameters but does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools. While the destructive nature is clear, there is no guidance on alternatives like bulk deletion or soft deletion if available.

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