Delete Client

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the irrevocability bar is partly covered. The description adds the referential-integrity failure mode — the call will error rather than cascade when accounting records reference the client — which is behavior annotations cannot express. It does not say what the response looks like or whether it can be undone beyond "permanently".

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the destructive nature is front-loaded before the failure condition and the alternative. Every clause carries information the agent needs to act correctly.

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-param destructive mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers intent, failure semantics, and the escape hatch. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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 a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no syntax, format, or selection guidance for the id beyond what the schema provides; baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Permanently delete a client") and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling deactivate_client by contrasting permanent removal with hiding an in-use record. An agent can route between delete_client and deactivate_client without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly states when-not to use it (client referenced by invoices, journals, transactions, or other accounting records), names the alternative tool to use instead, and names the intended use case (mistakenly-created master data with no history). Both the trigger and the exclusion are given.

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