delete_case

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'soft-delete', which conveys that the operation is non-destructive but does not explain consequences (e.g., visibility, reversibility, or response format). This is a minimal but meaningful behavioral signal.

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, concise sentence that states exactly what the tool does with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It covers the key behavior (soft-delete) and the resource type. Minor gaps like the exact effect of a soft-delete are not critical for a basic call, so the description is nearly complete.

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 schema has one parameter 'id' with format uuid, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the parameter at all, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage. However, the single parameter is self-explanatory, reducing the gap but still leaving the description lacking.

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 states the verb 'Soft-delete' and the resource 'custom org case' clearly, distinguishing it from siblings like remove_assessment_case which targets assessment cases. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with any sibling tool, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and siblings.

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