delete_customer

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing a business rule that blocks the operation when projects are attached — a failure mode the annotations cannot express. It does not state reversibility or cascade effects, keeping it from a 5.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the operation is front-loaded and the blocking precondition follows immediately. Nothing is padded or restated.

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?

A destructive tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage needs only a crisp statement of action plus the non-obvious failure condition, both of which are present. The agent knows what it does, when it will be refused, and that the return shape is documented elsewhere.

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%: both 'customer' (name or id) and 'confirm' (must be true to delete) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail about either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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) in the first sentence, which cleanly separates it from the create_/update_/get_/list_ siblings by naming convention. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from adjacent deletion tools (delete_project, delete_task) in the way a 5 would require.

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 precondition 'Gryzzly refuses while projects are attached to it' implicitly tells the agent when this call will succeed, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of alternatives (e.g. detach projects first), and no mention of required permissions. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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