companies_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by stating the cascade deletion scope (what gets destroyed: invoices, clients, products, ANAF tokens), the asynchronous nature of the deletion, role-based authorization requirements, and irreversibility. This is comprehensive disclosure for a destructive mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentences, zero filler. Every sentence carries essential information: what is deleted, the async cascade behavior, role restrictions, and irreversibility. Extremely dense and information-efficient without being verbose.

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?

Even though there is no output schema, the tool is a delete action with a minimal input surface (one UUID). The description covers the key behavioral aspects an agent needs: what data is affected, expected latency (asynchronous), authorization requirements, and permanence. For a destructive tool, this is fully complete.

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% — the single 'uuid' parameter is described as 'Company UUID to delete'. The description adds marginal context by stating it's the company being permanently deleted, which reinforces the destructive nature but the schema already adequately documents the one parameter. With only one parameter and full schema coverage, the description need not add much here.

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 company and all associated data (invoices, clients, products, ANAF tokens). It uses a specific verb+resource (delete company), and the scope of destruction is explicitly enumerated. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like companies_set_active, companies_toggle_sync, and companies_update.

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 explicitly states role requirements ('Only Owner or Admin roles can delete companies') and emphasizes irreversibility ('This action cannot be undone'). It also notes the asynchronous cascade deletion behavior, which guides when and whether to invoke this tool. The warning about permanence serves as both a usage caveat and a when-not-to-use signal.

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