delete_employee

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares destruction, permanence, and irreversibility upfront. It does not mention permission requirements or side effects on related records (e.g., salary records, time entries), which keeps it short of a 5.

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 short sentences, zero padding, and the destructive warning is front-loaded so the agent sees the risk before anything else.

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 essential information (permanent, irreversible, scoped to an employee record) is present. Missing only ancillary details such as authorization needs or downstream effects on linked records.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents employeeId. The description adds no format hints or constraints beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb (permanently deletes) and resource (an employee record in Holded, API v2), so it is clearly differentiated from temporal siblings like delete_employee_time. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with sibling deletion tools, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

It states that the operation is destructive and irreversible, but gives no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as update_employee for deactivation, nor any prerequisites. The agent has to infer usage context entirely.

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