dosare_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's main added value is explaining what is destroyed versus retained. It explicitly states that declarations, requests, and messages are kept and only ungrouped, which is important behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not discuss permissions or recovery, but the key side effect is disclosed.

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 two short sentences with no wasted text. The primary action is front-loaded and the retention behavior follows immediately.

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 delete with no output schema, the description covers the most important effect: the dosar is deleted while its declarations, requests, and messages remain but become ungrouped. It is not fully complete because it omits parameter guidance and any permission or irreversibility context, but the core behavior is clear.

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 description does not mention either parameter and adds no meaning beyond the input schema. The schema documents companyId but leaves id with only its name, type, and required status, so at 50% schema description coverage the description should compensate and does not.

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: 'Delete a dosar.' It also clarifies the non-obvious outcome that related declarations, requests, and messages are kept rather than deleted. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools such as dosare_update or dosare_get.

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 implies when to use the tool because it deletes a dosar, but it does not explicitly say when to choose deletion over alternatives such as updating or ungrouping through another operation. It also gives no prerequisites, warnings, or exclusions for a destructive operation.

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