delete_organizational_unit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose that deletion removes the OU and optionally all contained objects, and that emptiness is validated unless force is set. It could go further by stating irreversibility or required permissions, but the key destructive behavior is surfaced.

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 purpose and caution are front-loaded, and the example is useful for a deletion tool. It is slightly longer than necessary because the example repeats information already inferable from the schema, but it remains efficient.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior and force option but omits important operational context such as permission requirements and whether deletion is irreversible. It is adequate but not complete.

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 100%, so the schema already defines ou_dn and force. The description adds an example showing DN format and force usage, but does not add significant semantics beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete an Organizational Unit.' It is clearly distinguishable from sibling delete tools such as delete_user, delete_group, and delete_computer because it names the OU object type directly.

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 gives a caution ('Use with caution') and explains the force condition, but does not say when to choose this tool versus alternatives like modify_organizational_unit or move_organizational_unit. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly routed.

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