delete_company

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by explaining that the default is a soft delete (reversible) and that permanent=true triggers a hard delete. This provides behavioral context beyond the annotations, clarifying the reversible nature.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core behavior and key parameter usage.

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 tool with 2 parameters and annotations present, the description covers the essential behavior and parameter meaning. However, it does not describe the return value or side effects (e.g., what happens to related data), which is a gap given the absence of an 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add significant extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., id is a UUID, permanent boolean with default). Baseline of 3 is appropriate given 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 the tool deletes a company with two modes (soft and hard). The verb 'delete' and resource 'company' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other sibling delete tools like delete_contact or delete_entry, which could be improved for disambiguation.

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 provides some usage guidance by indicating the permanent parameter for hard delete versus soft delete by default. However, it lacks explicit context on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search and then delete) and does not mention prerequisites or when soft vs hard delete is appropriate.

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