dosare_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full responsibility of disclosing side effects. It does reveal a key behavior: declarations, requests, and messages are retained but become ungrouped. However, it omits other important aspects such as whether the dosar itself is permanently deleted or soft-deleted, reversibility, authorization requirements, or what happens to the dosar's own metadata. While it adds value, it is not comprehensive.

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 a single sentence that efficiently states the purpose and the most important nuance. It is front-loaded with the action and then clarifies the non-destructive side effect. No extraneous words or redundancy. It is a model of conciseness.

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 delete operation, the description covers the essential behavior (ungrouping) and the scope of deletion. It doesn't explain return values, but for a delete that is often standard. It lacks details about permissions or reversibility, but given the low complexity and the clear side effect, an agent can correctly invoke this tool with the id parameter. It is fairly complete but could mention soft-delete or confirmation behavior.

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 50% (only companyId has a description, id has none). The tool description does not mention either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage. The parameters are simple (id required, companyId optional), but the description adds no guidance on their usage, format, or constraints beyond the schema itself. This is a gap.

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 action ('Delete a dosar') and identifies the specific resource. It also adds a unique defining trait—declarations, requests, and messages are kept but ungrouped—which distinguishes it from other delete operations like declarations_delete or receipts_delete. This makes the purpose unambiguous even among many sibling dosare tools.

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 makes it clear that deleting a dosar does not delete associated items but ungroups them, which implies when it is appropriate to use this tool (when you want to remove a dosar while preserving its related data). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as if a complete cascade delete is needed. Still, the behavioral hint provides useful context.

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