beel_delete_customer

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, idempotent, openWorld), the description reveals critical side effects: the customer is retained internally but hidden from the API (404), not returned in any list regardless of the active filter, and its identifier is released for reuse. It also documents the 409 error response for invoice-bound customers and explains that deletion is a one-way operation. This goes well beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate consequences.

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 dense but not bloated. It front-loads the primary action, then explains retention and release, then the error case, and finally the alternative. Each sentence serves a purpose and avoids redundancy. While it could be shortened, the extra detail (e.g., the precise 409 code and the active-filter nuance) is valuable for effective tool selection.

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?

The description fully equips the agent: it covers the precondition (no invoices), post-deletion behavior (404, not listed, identifier released), the conflict case (409), and the recommended alternative (patch active=false). It also states the endpoint, which aids in debugging or manual inspection. No output schema exists, so it need not explain a return value. This is comprehensively complete for a destructive operation.

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 already has a descriptive description for company_id (NIF context, 403 handling) and customer_id (UUID). The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it mentions identifier release but does not link it to a specific parameter. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate—the description does not need to repeat schema details.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Deletes a customer of this company (NIF) that has no invoices.' It clearly differentiates from the bulk delete tool (beel_delete_customers_bulk) and the patch tool (beel_patch_customer) by specifying the invoice condition and the alternative for deactivation. The endpoint is also provided, leaving no ambiguity about 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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: for customers without invoices. It also gives the exclusion: 'A customer that has invoices cannot be deleted and answers `409`' and prescribes the alternative: 'update it with `active` set to `false` instead of deleting it.' This directly guides the agent to the correct sibling, eliminating guesswork.

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