Supprimer un(e) candidat

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds important context: the action is irreversible and confirmation may be requested. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise, front-loaded with the action, and includes a clear warning. The Args section is redundant but not wasteful. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 tool with one parameter, good annotations (destructiveHint), and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers irreversibility and confirmation behavior, and no additional return-value details are needed.

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 schema covers the 'id' parameter 100%, including its pattern and description. The description repeats the parameter without adding meaningful new semantics, so it adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 function with 'Supprime un(e) candidat de BoondManager' (deletes a candidate), using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that delete other entity types.

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 implies usage for deleting candidates but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. The irreversibility warning and elicitation note give some context but not enough for a 4.

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