request_customer_data_erasure

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the action is to 'submit a request' (implying it is not the actual deletion), but it does not disclose side effects, async behavior, reversibility, permissions needed, or what happens after submission. This is a significant gap for a privacy-sensitive operation.

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 a single, succinct sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and resource. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a minimum viable understanding of the purpose and context. However, it lacks crucial behavioral details (e.g., whether the erasure is immediate, reversible, or requires special permissions), so it is not fully complete for an agent to confidently invoke the 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?

The schema already documents the only parameter (customerId) with a clear description ('Customer ID to erase data for'), giving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline of 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 ('Submit') and the resource ('customer data erasure request'), with a clarifying GDPR context. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_customer_data_erasure_requests' (view) and 'cancel_customer_data_erasure' (cancel).

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 GDPR reference implies when to use this tool (when handling a right-to-be-forgotten request), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or how it differs from related tools. No alternative tools are referenced, so guidance is primarily implied rather than explicit.

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