Supprimer un(e) candidat

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds value by explicitly warning that the action is irreversible and describing the elicitation/confirmation behavior. This context is beyond what the annotations offer, giving the agent a clear understanding of the tool's impact.

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 very concise: one sentence for purpose, one sentence for warnings, and a one-line parameter list. Every sentence serves a clear purpose, with no extraneous text. The information hierarchy is effective.

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 simple delete operation with one parameter, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects (irreversibility, confirmation). The presence of an output schema compensates for the lack of return-value details. Additional context about permissions or side effects could marginally improve completeness, but the description is adequate.

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 has 100% coverage with a detailed description for the 'id' parameter (numeric pattern). The description restates the parameter as 'Identifiant de l'entité à supprimer', which adds marginal value (e.g., 'de l'entité' is generic). Since schema coverage is high, a baseline 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 tool's purpose: 'Supprime un(e) candidat de BoondManager' (deletes a candidate from BoondManager). Given the sibling tools, it is specific to candidates and distinguishable from other delete tools (e.g., boond_absences_delete, boond_companies_delete).

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 mentions the action is irreversible and that a confirmation may be asked if the MCP client supports elicitation, but it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative delete tools (e.g., when to delete a candidate vs. a contact or absences). No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use scenarios are given.

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