deleteRecordById

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is partly covered; the description reinforces this with 'Irreversible' and adds a human-confirmation requirement, which is real behavioral context. It says nothing about what happens on failure, partial deletion, or how transactionId affects atomicity.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the irreversibility warning and confirmation requirement, then the alternative. Every sentence carries distinct information with no 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?

With annotations covering the safety profile, an output schema handling return values, and 100% schema coverage on parameters, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: destructive scope, confirmation obligation, and a preview path.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no format or usage detail for transactionId. 'By ID' merely restates the recordId parameter, so 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource with scope ('Delete a single record by ID'), which distinguishes it from bulkDeleteRecords and bulkDeleteRecords-like siblings. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling deleteRecord, leaving the agent unsure which single-delete tool 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?

It states a precondition ('Always confirm with the user before calling') and points to an alternative for inspection ('Use getRecord to preview the record if needed'). It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or clarifying the split with deleteRecord.

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