Delete customer

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, etc., so the description's job is to add context beyond safety flags. It adds crucial behavioral details: deletion is permanent, includes their data, store subscriptions are not cancelled, and requires user confirmation. However, it doesn't mention potential irreversibility warnings or what happens to related resources beyond subscriptions (e.g., entitlements). Still, it's informative beyond annotations.

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 concise single sentence (plus a short follow-up) that front-loads the permanent deletion and scope, then adds key caveats and a call to action. Every part earns its place without waste.

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 destructive nature and lack of output schema, the description provides essential context: permanence, data deletion, non-cancellation of store subscriptions, and confirmation requirement. It covers what an agent needs to invoke correctly and responsibly. It could be more complete by specifying what other related data is affected (e.g., entitlements) or any rate limits, but it's largely sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameter semantics are fully documented in the schema. The description adds meaning by instructing to 'ask the user to confirm the app user id first', which clarifies the required customer_id parameter (app user id). However, it doesn't add new semantic details beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb (deletes) and resource (customer and their data), and clarifies the scope 'permanently' and 'from this project'. It distinguishes from siblings like cancel-subscription or revoke-customer-entitlement by its permanent data-deletion nature, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 clear context: it's for a data-deletion request, store subscriptions are not cancelled, and asks to confirm the app user id. It gives a specific instruction to confirm before deleting, which guides usage. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. other deletion-like tools (e.g., revoke-customer-entitlement), so it's not a full 5.

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