delete_party

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: destructive and irreversible, cascading to linked records, silent clearing of organisation field on linked people, orphan track instances, confirm parameter requirement, and idempotent retry behavior. No contradictions with annotations as none exist.

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 comprehensive but lengthy. It is well-structured, starting with a bold warning, then explaining cascading behavior, special cases, and retry behavior. Every sentence provides essential information, though some brevity could be achieved without losing clarity. Still, it earns a high score for being informative without being wasteful.

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?

The description is highly complete given the tool's complexity. It covers side effects, idempotency, prerequisites, and references sibling tools (remove_track). No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently explains return values. All relevant aspects are addressed.

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 has 50% coverage (confirm parameter described in schema). The description adds context for the confirm parameter (explicit requirement and consequences) and implies the id parameter usage. However, the id parameter is not explicitly described beyond schema constraints, though the description compensates somewhat. Overall, it adds meaningful value but could be more explicit for id.

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 that the tool deletes a party (person or organisation) permanently. It distinguishes this from other delete tools by detailing the cascading effects and specific behaviors for organisations, making the purpose clear and unique.

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 guidance on when to use the tool, including prerequisite steps (read party with get_party and user confirmation). It also discusses when not to use it implicitly by warning about track instances and orphan records, and suggests alternatives (remove_track) for cleanup.

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