Delete company (destructive)

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds 'This cannot be undone' and 'WRITE/DESTRUCTIVE:', reinforcing irreversibility. No contradictions.

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) with no redundant information. Front-loaded with 'WRITE/DESTRUCTIVE:' for quick identification. 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 simple destructive delete operation with good annotations and complete schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects (permanence, destruction). No output schema exists but the operation's result is clear. Minor gap: no mention of cascading effects on related resources.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described in the schema (account_id, company_id). The description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema 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 clearly states 'Permanently delete a company' with verb 'delete' and resource 'company', and explicitly marks it as 'WRITE/DESTRUCTIVE'. Among siblings like create_company, get_company, update_company, this uniquely identifies the destructive delete operation.

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 implies usage for permanent deletion but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., update_company to mark inactive) or when not to use. The sibling context includes many tools, but the description lacks differentiation criteria.

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