sophos_delete_tenant

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly labels the operation as 'destructive, irreversible' and warns to confirm the tenant ID carefully, clearly conveying the tool's impact. However, it does not detail consequences for associated resources or data, which could be more comprehensive.

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 exceptionally concise at two sentences, with the critical warning front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: purpose and scope in the first, caution in the second. No extraneous text or repetition.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, operation, and key behavioral warning. It could mention post-deletion effects or lack of undo confirmation, but the irreversibility warning covers the most critical context. Minor completeness gap given the simplicity of the tool.

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 already covers the single parameter tenant_id with a clear description (UUID). The tool description does not add any additional semantics or usage context for the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Given 100% schema coverage, a baseline score 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 clearly states 'Delete a tenant managed by this partner,' specifying both the action (delete) and the resource (tenant) with a scope qualifier. This distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like sophos_delete_endpoint or sophos_delete_user, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 warns about the destructive and irreversible nature of the operation and advises careful ID confirmation, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives (e.g., deactivating a tenant instead). While the caution implies careful consideration, no comparative guidance is provided.

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