wave_delete_customerDelete a customer to remove them from Wave lists while keeping the record readable by ID; use when cleanup is needed and no API undelete is required.
Delete a customer. Wave removes it from lists, but the record stays readable by ID (wave_get_customer shows deleted: true); there is no undelete through the API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Customer ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety bar is partly covered. The description goes well beyond them by disclosing the exact post-condition: removal from lists, continued readability by ID via wave_get_customer with deleted: true, and the absence of any undelete path.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the critical consequence. Every clause earns its place, including the pointer to wave_get_customer and the no-undelete warning.
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 one-parameter delete with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: what actually happens to the record and that the action is irreversible through the API. Nothing an agent needs before invoking it is absent.
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?
There is a single required parameter (id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it as 'Customer ID'. The description adds nothing about the identifier's format or source, which is acceptable at this baseline.
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?
Names a specific verb (delete) and resource (customer) and immediately clarifies the semantics: a soft delete that removes it from lists while keeping the record retrievable by ID. An agent can distinguish this from wave_update_customer or wave_get_customer without reading any schema.
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?
Usage is implied by the destructive nature and the note that there is no undelete, which is a useful warning. However, the description never explicitly says when to choose deletion versus updating the record, nor does it route the agent to any alternative (e.g., if it only wants to hide a customer from lists).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.