Supprimer un(e) ressource

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

The annotations already set destructiveHint=true. The description reinforces this with the irreversibility warning, adding explicit language. Beyond that, no additional behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, permissions) are disclosed, but the destructive nature is well communicated.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences plus one parameter line. It front-loads the purpose and warning, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every word 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 destructive operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it does, that it's irreversible, and the required identifier. It lacks details on the return value or error handling, but given the low complexity and presence of annotations, it is reasonably 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 input schema fully describes the parameter 'id' with schema description 'Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager'. The description's Args section repeats the same meaning ('Identifiant de l'entité à supprimer') without adding new semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no extra 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 deletes a resource ('Supprime un(e) ressource') with an explicit irreversibility warning. The title and description together distinguish it from sibling resource tools (e.g., create, get, update, search) that perform different operations.

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 includes an unambiguous irreversibility warning (⚠️ Action irréversible), which provides critical guidance for use. While it does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, the context of a delete operation and sibling separation make the guidance clear enough.

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