delete-customer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about irreversibility, permission requirements, or what happens to the customer's orders, addresses, and metafields. A single line for a destructive mutation is a material gap.

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?

It is a terse, front-loaded fragment with no wasted words, but its brevity reads as under-specification rather than economy. Three words do not carry enough content for a destructive operation.

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?

A destructive write tool with zero annotations and no output schema should explain consequences, cascade effects, and error behavior. The description covers none of these, leaving the agent unable to judge what deletion actually destroys or how to recover.

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% and the schema already explains the numeric-ID format and the GID warning, so the description need not repeat it. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds nothing but nothing is missing.

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?

"Delete a customer" is a direct restatement of the tool name delete-customer, adding no distinguishing detail. An agent can infer the verb+resource, but nothing separates it from siblings like update-customer, customer-merge, or delete-product-variants beyond the obvious noun.

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 on when to use this versus update-customer or customer-merge, and no statement of prerequisites (e.g. customer must have no orders). The destructive verb implies intent but the description provides no exclusions or alternatives.

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