post-crm-v4-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 full responsibility, but it only states a requirement and gives an example. It doesn't disclose the consequences of the deletion (e.g., irreversibility), required permissions, or response format. 'GDPR DELETE' implies erasure but not explicitly.

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 very short and front-loaded with 'GDPR DELETE', followed by the essential body requirement and an illustrative example. It's concise, though the JSON example could be streamlined without losing meaning.

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 complex CRM operation with legal implications, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain how the body interacts with objectId, whether this endpoint requires special scopes, what the response looks like, or error cases. The absence of an output schema further increases the need for a richer description.

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 schema descriptions are generic ('string parameter', 'Path parameter objectType'), and the description adds a body example not present in the schema. This adds value but also creates confusion because the schema requires objectType and objectId, while the description says body is required. The example properties are helpful, but the relationship between body and schema params is unclear.

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 'GDPR DELETE', clearly identifying the operation as a deletion for GDPR compliance. The example with 'companies' and object properties distinguishes it from the sibling standard delete by ID. However, it doesn't fully explain what GDPR deletion entails beyond the label.

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 use for GDPR-related deletion and shows that object properties are required in the body, which differentiates it from ID-based delete tools. Yet there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over alternatives or what prerequisites exist.

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