m3_delete_address

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Delete' does reveal the destructive intent, but nothing is said about whether deletion is permanent, what happens when the ID does not exist, whether referenced records are affected, or any permission requirements. This is a meaningful gap for a destructive operation.

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?

One sentence with zero wasted words: the verb is front-loaded, the resource is explicit, and the selection mechanism is stated. For a simple one-parameter tool, this is perfectly sized and every word earns its place.

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 minimal single-parameter delete with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation facts: what to delete and how to identify it. However, it omits behavioral context such as error handling and permanence, which a destructive tool with no annotation support should ideally disclose. The core call can still be made correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the single required 'id' parameter already documents 'Address record ID' with exclusiveMinimum 0. The description's 'by ID' reinforces the schema but adds no new semantic meaning, so the high-coverage 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 states a specific verb ('Delete'), resource ('address book entry'), and mechanism ('by ID'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It implicitly distinguishes from the many sibling delete tools (m3_delete_invoice, m3_delete_liability, etc.) by naming the exact resource type, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites such as first looking up the ID via m3_address_book or m3_create_address, nor any conditions for preferring this over other m3_delete_* tools. The only usage signal is trivially implied by the verb and name.

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