companies_delete

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description explains that deletion cascades asynchronously to specific associated entities and that the action cannot be undone. It also discloses the authorization constraint, giving an agent substantial behavioral context for a destructive operation.

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 four short sentences, front-loads the permanent deletion and scope, then adds async behavior, role restriction, and irreversibility. Every sentence contributes useful decision or safety information.

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?

For a destructive cascade-delete tool with a simple one-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers what is deleted, async behavior, authorization requirements, and irreversibility. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly and safely.

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 schema already documents the single uuid parameter at 100% coverage, including its meaning as the company UUID. The description adds no additional parameter-level syntax, format, or validation detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Permanently delete a company") and immediately scopes the impact with named associated data (invoices, clients, products, ANAF tokens). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like companies_update or companies_delete_logo.

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 provides a clear prerequisite ("Only Owner or Admin roles can delete companies") and emphasizes the irreversible nature, which helps an agent decide when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly contrast with safer alternatives such as companies_set_active or list when deletion should be preferred.

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