Delete customer (dangerous)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this is a dangerous deletion requiring an environment flag and confirmation, but it omits critical details such as irreversibility, side effects on related records, and what happens if confirmation is false or absent.

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 short sentences with zero waste; the method, path, and gating requirements are front-loaded. Every clause earns its place for a minimal delete tool.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It covers the gating requirements but says nothing about permanence, side effects on related data, or error behavior, leaving an agent without enough context to call it safely in a production workflow.

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. It clarifies that `confirm` must be true, adding meaning beyond the schema's default false, and the path placeholder {number} shows where the required customer identifier goes. It does not document the `number` constraints (pattern, max length) or the full semantics of `confirm` (e.g., what happens on false).

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 (DELETE) and resource (/customer/{number}), making the action unmistakable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like delete_customer_product, but the resource path is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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?

Provides prerequisite conditions (AIOTIC_MCP_ALLOW_DANGEROUS=true and confirm:true), which imply this tool should only be used when dangerous operations are enabled and confirmation is supplied. However, it does not describe when to use this versus alternatives such as delete_customer_product, nor does it mention 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.