delete_lead

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the safety burden. It discloses that the operation is permanent, destructive, high-write, hard-blocked, and the exact confirmation requirement. This is strong behavioral transparency for a delete tool.

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 dense, front-loaded sentence communicates the destructive nature, the permanence, the write level, and the confirmation requirement without wasted words.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no annotations, this is nearly complete. It could add a note about what response to expect or consequences beyond the lead record, but the agent has enough to invoke it 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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds essential semantics for confirm by stating it must always be true, overriding its default false. lead_id is not explained, but that parameter is self-evident from its name and required status.

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 and resource: permanently delete a lead. The leading 'DESTRUCTIVE' flag clearly differentiates this from non-destructive lead operations like update_lead or move_lead.

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?

It gives clear invocation guidance by requiring confirm=true in all modes, including autonomous. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the destructive context makes the intended use obvious.

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