delete_customer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a non-obvious behavior (silent success on no match) and the constraint that external references require both fields. However, it does not mention permissions, irreversibility, or what happens if both ID and external reference are supplied.

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?

Brief and well-structured: a one-line summary, a usage paragraph, and a clean Args list. Every sentence adds value and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 low-complexity delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational aspects: addressing modes and silent success. Minor gaps remain on conflict handling (both ID and external refs) and permissions, but overall it is nearly complete.

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 schema has zero description coverage, so the description fully compensates. It defines each parameter: customer_id as UUID, external_source as the originating system, external_id as the customer's ID in that system, and explains their combined usage.

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 opens with 'Delete a customer', which clearly states the action and resource. It further specifies two addressing modes (by ID or external reference), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_customer_property.

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?

Explicitly tells the user to pass either customer_id or both external_source and external_id, and warns that external-reference deletes succeed silently when nothing matches. This is clear usage context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases.

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