delete_party

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds extensive detail: cascading to notes, tasks, opportunities, and projects; special handling for organisations (silent clearing of organisationId); track instances not cleaned up; and the idempotent response format. No contradiction with annotations.

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 long but front-loaded with the most critical warning 'DESTRUCTIVE & IRREVERSIBLE'. Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly more concise without losing critical information. Still, very effective.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains return values and idempotency. It covers all necessary behavioral details for a destructive tool, including edge cases like already-deleted parties and orphan tracks.

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 50% (only confirm has a description). The description significantly enhances meaning by explaining confirm's role, reiterating irreversibility, cascading, and the organisation case. It also specifies the response format, which the schema lacks.

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 the tool permanently deletes a party (person or organisation) and cascades to linked entities. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing its destructive and irreversible nature, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 provides explicit when-to-use instructions: always read the party first with get_party and confirm with the user. It also notes when not to use (e.g., for organisations, people linked are not deleted) and suggests using remove_track if orphan accumulation matters. It explains idempotent behavior for retries.

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