Supprimer un(e) société

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds an explicit irreversibility warning and explains that confirmation is requested when the MCP client supports elicitation. This adds behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't address cascading effects or error states.

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 short, front-loaded with purpose, and includes the warning and confirmation behavior. The Args list is minimal and necessary. No redundant content.

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 one-parameter delete tool with annotations and output schema, the description covers purpose, irreversibility, and confirmation behavior. It lacks details on cascading deletions or error states, but these are not essential for basic use.

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 description's Args section restates the id parameter, but the input schema already provides fuller information (unique, numeric pattern). With 100% schema coverage, the description adds limited 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 'Supprime un(e) société de BoondManager' with the verb 'Supprimer' and resource 'société', distinguishing it from sibling delete tools for other entities (candidates, resources, opportunities). The title and description are fully aligned.

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 use case is clear: use when deleting a company. The description does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous. It also provides context about confirmation behavior via elicitation, which helps set expectations for usage.

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