Delete client

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

Annotations already state destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: the delete is 'real, irreversible,' requires user confirmation, and should only be used for clients without associated documents. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent actionable safety guidance.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then adding necessary caveats. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant filler or repetition of schema/annotation data.

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?

The description covers purpose, irreversibility, confirmation, and usage constraints, which is strong for a simple one-parameter delete tool. However, it does not explain what happens if called on a client that does have associated documents (e.g., error, cascade, or block). Since no output schema exists, a brief note on expected outcome would make it fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the sole parameter, clientId. The description does not explicitly define clientId, but its meaning is implied by the tool name and purpose ('delete a client record'). This is adequate for a single obvious parameter, but the description adds no explicit parameter-level detail such as format or source.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a client record.' It also distinguishes this tool from document-related operations by noting 'Unlike documents, this is a real, irreversible delete,' which differentiates it from sibling tools like cancel_document or close_document. The scope is unambiguous.

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 clear conditions for use: 'confirm with the user first' and 'prefer it only for clients with no associated documents.' This gives an explicit when-not condition. However, it does not name an alternative tool (e.g., update_client) for cases where deletion is not appropriate, so it falls short of full alternatives guidance.

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