mercury_delete_customer

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

Description details permanent deletion, loss from AR list, potential dangling customerId on past invoices, and non-recoverability. Annotations already mark destructiveHint and openWorldHint, but description adds concrete repercussions.

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?

Well-structured with labeled sections (USE WHEN, DO NOT USE, SIDE EFFECTS, RETURNS) and bold key terms. Every sentence is informative and no extraneous content.

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-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers usage, limitations, side effects, and return value. No gaps remain for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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?

Only one parameter (customerId) is fully described in the schema with format and pattern. The description does not add additional semantics beyond what schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'Permanently delete an Accounts Receivable customer' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mercury_create_customer and mercury_update_customer by its destructive nature.

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?

Provides clear WHEN to use (removing mistaken or purge-worthy customers) and WHEN NOT to use (if invoices have paid/outstanding status). Also gives an alternative: cancel invoices via mercury_cancel_invoice. Explicitly requires user confirmation.

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