Supprimer un achat/sous-traitance

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: the action is explicitly irreversible ('Action irréversible') and mentions that confirmation is requested before deletion when the MCP client supports elicitation. This goes beyond the structured metadata and clarifies real-world side effects.

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 two short sentences: the first states the purpose, the second delivers the critical warning and confirmation behavior. No redundant or filler text.

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 operation with annotations and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It could mention what happens to related data or required permissions, but the irreversibility warning covers the main risk.

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 covers 100% of parameters with a clear description for 'id' (unique numeric identifier). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Supprime') and the resource ('un achat de BoondManager'), which is a specific verb+resource pair. The title further clarifies scope with 'achat/sous-traitance'. This distinguishes it from other purchase tools (e.g., get/search/create) and other entity delete tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites beyond the id. The usage is only implied by the verb 'Supprime'; there are no stated exclusions, required prior steps, or references to sibling search/get tools.

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