Deletes a customer by ID to remove unwanted or outdated records from Linear.
Delete a customer
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Customer ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| success | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description merely states 'Delete a customer', which is consistent but adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., whether deletion cascades to related entities, or if it's a soft/hard delete). No contradictions with annotations.
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 at three words, which fits a simple destructive action. It could be slightly more informative (e.g., one sentence), but it is not verbose and front-loads the core 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?
Given that an output schema exists and the operation is simple, the description is adequate. However, it does not clarify typical success/failure responses or side effects, which would be helpful for completeness.
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 has one parameter 'id' with a description 'Customer ID', and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any extra meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.
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 is 'Delete a customer', clearly stating the specific verb (delete) and resource (customer). It distinguishes from sibling tools like linear_updateCustomer or linear_archiveCustomer, making it unambiguous.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as linear_archiveCustomer (softer deletion) or linear_deleteCustomerNeed. There is no mention of prerequisites, irreversible consequences, or conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.