Supprimer un(e) société

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

The description discloses that the action is irreversible and that a confirmation may be requested, adding valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations (destructiveHint: true). There is no contradiction with 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?

The description is very concise: two sentences and a parameter list. It front-loads the purpose and warning, making it easy to read. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the core behavior (delete, irreversible, confirmation) but does not mention prerequisites like required permissions or state constraints. Given the presence of an output schema, this is acceptable but not fully complete.

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 already describes the 'id' parameter with a pattern and description. The description repeats the parameter name and description without adding new meaning, such as where to get the ID or examples. With 100% schema coverage, a score 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 that it deletes a company ('Supprime un(e) société de BoondManager') and marks it as irreversible. This aligns perfectly with the tool name and title, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create or update.

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 provides context about when a confirmation dialog appears (if the MCP client supports elicitation), which gives some usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other alternatives or exclude any cases.

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