Delete a company

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the HTTP method and authorization class but does not elaborate on side effects or cascading behavior beyond what annotations provide.

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 very short—two sentences—and front-loads the purpose. While concise, it sacrifices completeness; however, there is no wasted text.

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 it is a simple delete operation with annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits crucial details like deletion permanence and impact on related data, but annotations partially compensate.

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 description does not explain any parameters. The body parameter has schema documentation, but the required companyId path parameter lacks description in both schema and text. The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema for the critical parameter.

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 explicitly states 'Delete a company' and provides the HTTP method and resource path. It clearly identifies the action and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get or patch by nature.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as archiving or updating. The description mentions authorization class but does not provide context about prerequisites, reversibility, or consequences.

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