delete_client

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Delete a client' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what happens to associated data (e.g., invoices, transactions), authentication requirements, or error conditions. The 'Returns' line mentions confirmation but gives no details about format or content.

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 appropriately concise with three short lines. It front-loads the core purpose ('Delete a client'), then lists Args and Returns in a structured format. Every sentence earns its place, though the Returns line could be more informative. No wasted words, but the structure is minimalistic rather than optimally explanatory.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context: irreversible nature, side effects on related data, permission requirements, and detailed return values. For a delete tool in a financial system with many siblings, this leaves significant gaps for safe and correct usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the parameter 'client_id' with a brief explanation 'ID of the client to delete', which provides basic semantics beyond the schema's title 'Client Id'. However, it doesn't specify format (e.g., numeric, UUID), validation rules, or where to obtain it, leaving gaps. With only one parameter, this partial compensation earns a baseline 3.

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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'a client', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_client' or 'get_client' by specifying deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other destructive operations like 'delete' actions that might exist in other contexts, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., ensure client has no active invoices), warn about irreversible effects, or suggest alternatives like archiving. With siblings like 'update_client' and 'list_clients', this lack of context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.

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