delete_geographic_access_custom_region

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior, and the description adds important behavioral constraints beyond that: ownership by the authenticated tenant, the inability to delete assigned regions, and the permission requirement. No contradiction with the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations.

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?

Four short sentences, each adding a distinct piece of information: domain context, action, constraint, and permission. The description is front-loaded and has no wasted words.

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 one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the critical operational constraints: ownership, assignment state, and required permission. It does not mention return behavior or error cases, but these are less critical given the destructive annotation and the simplicity of the operation.

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 only 33%, and the tool description does not compensate. The required customRegionId is not explicitly described as the target region identifier, and X-Tenant-Id is left entirely unexplained. Only customerContext benefits from a schema-level description.

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 tool deletes a custom region, naming the specific resource and action. It also distinguishes itself from sibling create/update/list tools by emphasizing deletion and the ownership/assignment constraints.

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 gives clear conditions for use: the region must be owned by the authenticated tenant, cannot be assigned, and requires the UsersManager permission. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other operations, but the context is sufficient for an agent to choose this over similar geographic access tools.

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