post-crm-v3-objects-objtype-gdpr-delete_gdpr-delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior, but it only states 'GDPR DELETE' and a requirement for a body parameter. It doesn't disclose that this is likely a hard/permanent deletion, what happens to associated records, or whether the operation is reversible. The example is about matching properties, which hints at a non-standard delete behavior but remains unexplained.

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 brief (one sentence plus an example), which is concise, but the example is extraneous and does not align with the schema parameters. It earns its place poorly because the space is used for misleading information rather than necessary clarification.

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 deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description lacks essential context: deletion semantics (permanent vs soft), target identification (objectId vs idProperty vs body properties), expected response/errors, and any special considerations for GDPR. The provided example is not enough to compensate for these gaps.

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 description directly conflicts with the input schema. It says 'REQUIRES body parameter with object properties' and shows an example with a properties object, but the schema lists objectType and objectId as required and has no body parameter. This actively misleads an agent about how to invoke the tool, outweighing the high schema description coverage.

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 'GDPR DELETE' and provides a concrete example, giving some sense of the operation. However, it doesn't explicitly say it deletes a CRM object or clarify the resource, and the example involving company properties is ambiguous. It distinguishes from regular delete only by the 'GDPR' label, not by clear behavior.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus other delete endpoints (e.g., delete-crm-v3-objects-objtype-objid_objid or the v4 GDPR delete sibling). It doesn't mention legal or data-erasure contexts, irreversibility, or prerequisite scopes/permissions.

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