delete_beneficiary

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

With no annotations present, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. While it discloses that the action is a 'soft-delete' (implying reversibility), it omits details on authorization requirements, side effects (e.g., cascading to payments), or return behavior. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise: a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action without extraneous words. Every word contributes value, making it easy for an agent to quickly parse.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain success/error behavior (e.g., returns an empty response, throws if not found), nor does it clarify the implications of 'soft-delete' (e.g., visibility in future lists). The agent is left with unanswered questions.

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 provides a 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'uuid', explaining it as the 'UUID of the beneficiary to delete'. The tool description does not add further semantics but there is no need given the schema's completeness. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('soft-deletes') and the resource ('beneficiary'), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like 'delete_beneficiary_email_request'. However, it does not elaborate on what 'soft-delete' entails, such as marking as inactive versus removal.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_beneficiary, delete_beneficiary_email_request). It does not mention prerequisites, such as ensuring the beneficiary exists or is not linked to active trades, nor does it state when not to use it.

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