delete_organizations

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

With no annotations, the description discloses permanent deletion, the max batch size, and the skip behavior with a reason. It does not mention idempotency or error responses, but the key destructive and partial-failure aspects are transparent.

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 two concise sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the action and immediately provides critical constraints and a useful preview tip, making every word purposeful.

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 covers the essential context: permanence, limit, conditional skipping, and preview. It does not explain return values, but that is not required given the tool's simplicity.

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 description explicitly notes 'by id' and 'max 200', which aligns with the schema's organizationIds array and maxItems. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates, but it adds little beyond what the parameter name and schema already imply.

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 (delete), the resource (organizations), and the scope (by id). It also highlights a key constraint (max 200) and a behavioral nuance (skipped if prospects exist), which distinguishes it from related tools like delete_prospects or delete_project.

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 advises to 'Preview with list_organizations,' which gives clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternative tools for deleting individual prospects, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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