Delete a custom object

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly discloses the destructive nature ('removes the object and its data') and the gating condition. However, it doesn't mention irreversibility or any side effects beyond data deletion, which could be more explicit for a delete operation. Still, the key behavioral traits are evident.

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 sentences, front-loading the core action and then adding the prerequisite and gating. Every sentence carries useful information; there is no fluff or repetition. It is concise while covering all key points.

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 simple delete operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what is deleted, how to identify the target, the API used, and a gating condition. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes objectId as the Tooling API Id. The description adds value by explicitly stating the requirement and pointing to a method to find that ID (sf_list_custom_objects). This goes beyond the schema's bare description and helps an agent populate the parameter correctly.

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 it deletes a custom object via the Tooling API and specifies the exact resource and endpoint. It distinguishes from siblings like sf_delete_custom_field and sf_create_custom_object by naming the specific operation and resource. The mention of the required Tooling API Id further clarifies the scope.

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 the prerequisite (Tooling API Id) and points to sf_list_custom_objects as the way to obtain it. It also discloses the gating condition (MC_NEXT_ALLOW_METADATA_CHANGES=true), which is a clear usage constraint. Though it doesn't name all alternatives, this is strong guidance for an agent.

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