Delete client

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing blast radius (past appointments preserved) and a real side effect (the client is not notified). It stops short of stating reversibility or what happens on a repeat delete, despite idempotentHint=false.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: action, fidelity to the UI behavior, and consequence. The core action is front-loaded and nothing is padded.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers consequences and non-effects well. A minor gap remains around what happens when the card is already gone (annotations say non-idempotent) and whether the removal is recoverable.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the sole parameter client_id already documents its source (list_clients or find_client). The description adds no further meaning about the identifier, so 3 is the correct baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (remove) and resource (client card from client list) plus an explicit scope boundary: past appointments stay in the calendar. This separates it from related siblings like cancel_appointment or update_client without requiring the schema to be opened.

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?

Usage is implied by the clear 'remove a client card' framing, and the note that appointments are untouched implicitly rules out using this to cancel bookings. However, it never states when to prefer this over update_client or what prerequisites (e.g., existing client, permissions) apply.

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