avanan_delete_tenant

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly warns that the action deletes the tenant and all its data, disclosing the destructive and irreversible nature. This goes beyond the schema's parameter description and clearly signals mutational side effects.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The action is stated first, and the critical warning is appended. Every word earns its place, providing essential information without padding.

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 single-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description is complete for correct invocation. It explains what happens (deletion with data loss) and the required ID. The warning covers the main risk, and the schema handles the parameter format. A 5 would require explicit mention of success/error responses or rollback absence, but these are minor for this simple 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?

Schema coverage is 100%—tenant_id is already described as 'Avanan tenant ID.' The description adds no further meaning beyond 'by ID,' which is redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema fully documents the only parameter.

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 verb 'Delete,' the resource 'customer tenant,' and the method 'by ID.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_tenant, get_tenant, and list_tenants without requiring the agent to inspect schemas.

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 implies usage (delete a specific tenant) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The destructive nature is hinted at via the warning, but no guidance is given on when not to use it (e.g., 'only when irreversible deletion is intended').

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