deleteRecord

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known, but the description adds genuinely non-redundant context: the operation is irreversible and should be confirmed with the user. It omits any permission/auth requirements or what the returned payload confirms about the deletion.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then risk, then the pre-call protocol. Every sentence carries a distinct instruction and none is padding.

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 no explanation, and the description covers the risk and the workflow. It could still say whether the delete is idempotent or what error means (record missing), but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 both recordId and the optional transactionId are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the transactional parameter (e.g. atomicity semantics), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Delete a single record') with an explicit scope qualifier ('single') that separates it from bulkDeleteRecords. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very similarly named sibling deleteRecordById, leaving some ambiguity about which single-record delete to pick.

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?

Gives concrete operating guidance: confirm with the user before calling, and preview with findRecords first. This is real when/how-to-use context. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool or when a sibling delete is preferable.

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