passgage_delete_sub_companie

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

There are no annotations, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a sub_companie, but does not disclose whether the deletion is permanent, cascading, or requires special permissions. This lack of added context falls short.

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, five-word sentence that clearly states the operation. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the verb, with no unnecessary words.

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 one well-documented parameter, the description covers the essential information: what is deleted and how to identify it. An output schema is not necessary, and no extra context is missing.

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 fully documents the single parameter 'id' with a description that says 'The UUID of the sub_companie to delete'. The tool description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the imperative verb 'Delete' followed by the specific resource 'sub_companie' and the method 'by ID'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as create_sub_companie, update_sub_companie, and get_sub_companie.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for deleting a sub_companie when you have its ID, but it does not mention when NOT to use it or suggest alternatives. However, the context is unambiguous given the CRUD naming convention.

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