beel_delete_company_logo

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and idempotent. The description adds valuable context beyond those: future invoices omit the logo, already issued documents are unchanged, and deleting an absent logo still returns 204. This gives the agent a clear model of side effects and idempotent behavior.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core action is first, followed by consequential effects and the idempotent edge case, then the endpoint for completeness. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given a single required parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety traits, the description is fully adequate. It explains the main effect, the persistence effect, the idempotent outcome, and the exact HTTP endpoint. There is nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly that is missing.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, including a detailed explanation of company_id, the derived account context, and the 403 behavior. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond echoing the endpoint, which is acceptable because the schema already carries the load. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Removes the logo of a company.' It clearly identifies the target (company logo) and distinguishes it from the many other delete_* siblings like delete_company or delete_customer. The endpoint string reinforces the exact 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?

The description implies when to use this tool: when the goal is to remove a company logo. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but given the highly specific resource and the sibling list, an agent can infer the correct context. More explicit exclusion guidance would raise this score.

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