Delete Client

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals that the delete is scoped to the workspace only and that the client remains in production until a version without it is published, which is a high-value side-effect warning. It could add reversibility or permission details, but the core destructive behavior is well explained.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action, and the second adds a critical behavioral nuance. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The parameters are fully described by the schema, an output schema exists, and the description provides the most important operational context: the deletion is workspace-only and not immediately reflected in production. The main omission is guidance about reversibility or alternatives, but overall the tool is sufficiently described for correct invocation.

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 100%, so every parameter—client_id, account_id, container_id, and workspace_id—is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable because the IDs are self-explanatory and fully covered.

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 and resource: 'Delete a client from a workspace.' It clearly identifies the client as the object and scopes the deletion to the workspace, distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_workspace or delete_container. The extra detail about workspace-only impact removes ambiguity.

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 implies when this tool is relevant by clarifying that deletion affects only the workspace and not production until a version is published. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as revert_client, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is useful but indirect.

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