OpenPanel: Delete client

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description adds real value beyond that by naming the downstream consequence ("Any integrations using this client will stop working") and the authorization prerequisite ('root' mode). It does not state whether the operation is reversible or what happens when client_id does not exist, which is the remaining gap for a destructive tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and immediately followed by the destructive warning, so the highest-risk information is read first. Only the bracketed "[UNIFIED]" tag is wasted space.

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 destructive, non-idempotent tool with no output schema and undocumented parameters, the description covers consequence and auth but leaves the error behavior and the meaning of `site` unexplained. It is adequate to prevent accidental misuse but not complete enough to call confidently.

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 description coverage is 0% and both parameters are required, so the description carries the full burden — yet it never explains what `site` identifies or what form `client_id` takes. A caller must infer both from the parameter names alone.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Delete an API client") plus the mechanism ("via Manage API"), which cleanly separates it from openpanel_create_client, openpanel_get_client, openpanel_update_client and openpanel_delete_project. The "[UNIFIED]" prefix is opaque noise but does not obscure the operation.

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?

Gives one concrete usage condition ("Requires 'root' mode client"), which is genuinely actionable. It offers no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and does not point to alternatives such as disabling or updating a client instead of deleting it, so usage is only implied.

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