Delete Client

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context beyond annotations by explicitly stating the action is irreversible and may affect existing invoices and quotes, which is valuable behavioral information.

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 concise, with two sentences per language covering the action, permanence, and warning. It is front-loaded with key info. Bilingual content is necessary but adds length; could be slightly tighter.

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 the simple delete operation with an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers purpose, consequences, and side effects. It is complete for the context of the tool.

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?

There is only one parameter (id) with 100% schema documentation. The description adds no additional meaning or format details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 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 clearly states the action (permanently delete a client), the resource (client by ID), and distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_client_contact or delete_invoice by specifying the impact on invoices and quotes.

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 caution by stating permanence and potential side effects, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use delete_client_contact instead). Guidance is implicit and could be improved.

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