Customers Delete

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, non-read-only, idempotent, and open-world, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the no-orders precondition and the required write_customers scope.

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 front-loaded with the action and its key constraint, then provides compact operational context: HTTP method/path, required scope, and API version. Every line is short and useful.

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 single-parameter delete tool with annotations covering destructive/idempotent behavior and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly: the target resource, the precondition, the scope, and the API version.

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?

There is one required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines the ID input. The description shows the path template /customers/{id}, but adds no further meaning about the ID format or behavior.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (delete a customer) and adds the critical scoping rule that the customer must have no orders. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as customers_get, customers_update, and customers_create.

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 gives a clear precondition for use: deletion is only possible if the customer has no orders. It does not name any alternative or fallback behavior for customers with orders, which keeps it short of full explicit when/when-not guidance.

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