delete_prospects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses permanence ('permanently delete'), workspace-wide scope, skip conditions, and a side effect (reports organizations left with no prospects). This is highly 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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and constraints, and contains no unnecessary words. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and edge cases.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, exclusions, preview step, and side effects. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 fully constrains the single parameter prospectIds (array of integers, max 200). The description adds 'by id' and 'max 200', but those duplicate schema constraints; no significant new meaning beyond the schema is provided.

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 tool permanently deletes prospects by ID with a maximum of 200, workspace-wide. This distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like delete_project and delete_organizations, and the preview reference adds context.

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?

It explicitly recommends previewing with list_project_prospects before deleting, which is an alternative. It also notes skipped categories (do-not-contact, outreach history, 2+ projects), helping the agent decide when the tool is appropriate, though it doesn't contrast with softer alternatives like skip_prospect.

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