companies_delete_logo

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the downstream consequence: generated PDFs will stop including the company logo. It stops short of saying whether the old logo asset is recoverable or whether any error occurs when there is no logo.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the action stated first and the observable effect second. Nothing is padded or repeated from the title.

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 one-parameter delete operation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the key consequence an agent needs. Minor gap: no note on behavior when the company has no logo or on failure modes.

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?

One parameter (uuid) with 100% schema description coverage ('Company UUID'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the identifier format or scoping, which is acceptable at baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Remove the logo from a company') and pairs it with a concrete effect. It is clearly distinct from companies_upload_logo and companies_update, though it doesn't name the sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer it applies when a company should no longer carry a logo, but there is no statement of prerequisites (permissions, ownership) or what to do if no logo exists. No alternative tool is referenced.

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