raynet_delete_record

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the destructive nature and the linked-data error behavior, but it omits mention of irreversibility, the confirmation parameter workflow, or permission requirements. Schema covers confirmation, but the description could go further.

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?

Two tight sentences convey the core action, supported entity types, and the most important error behavior with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded and every sentence 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 delete operation with a fully described schema, the description plus schema give the agent enough to invoke the tool and understand a key failure mode. The main gap is a clearer statement of permanence or success-response expectations, especially given no output schema.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including the multi-step confirmation workflow. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Deletes a record from Raynet CRM' and enumerates the exact entity types it supports. This distinguishes it from the sibling read/search tools without ambiguity.

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 when deletion is applicable by naming the entity types, and notes that linked data will produce an error. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, discuss prerequisites, or warn against deletion before verification.

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