delete_customer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known from structured data. The description adds genuinely new information: the delete is permanent and cascades to the customer's tickets. Beyond that it says nothing about permission requirements, confirmation, or whether other records (invoices, refunds) are affected, which matters for an irreversible operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the destructive scope is stated immediately. The cryptic policy tag consumes the first tokens without explaining itself, which is the only structural weakness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the one-parameter surface is simple. However, for an irreversible destructive tool the description omits confirmation behavior, permission requirements, and the full scope of collateral deletion, leaving real gaps an agent would want covered.

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% on the single parameter, but the required parameter is a plain identifier whose meaning is effectively conveyed by the tool's framing, and there are no hidden format or enum concerns. The description adds no explicit detail about customer_id format or provenance, so it neither helps nor misleads.

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?

"Permanently delete a customer and their tickets" gives a specific verb (delete), a specific resource (customer), and the cascade scope (their tickets). It is unambiguous and distinguishable from every sibling, none of which are deletion operations, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with.

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 leading "[policy: deny]" tag hints the call is disallowed but never explains what policy, under what conditions, or what an agent should do instead. There is no statement of prerequisites, confirmation requirements, or alternative tools for deactivating rather than deleting a customer.

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