Delete a client

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly reveals that deletion is conditional and that the tool names any referencing document when refusing deletion. It is not annotated as destructive, but the word 'Delete' inherently signals destruction, and the description adds non-obvious dependency behavior.

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 succinct sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and precondition, the second details the refusal behavior with a specific list of document types. Front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 single-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, the dependency restriction, and the error response style. A minor gap is that it does not state success response behavior, but the core information needed to select and invoke the tool correctly is present.

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 input schema already fully documents the only parameter with the note 'Client name or id, exactly as client_list shows it.' The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema is doing the heavy lifting.

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 action and resource: delete a stored client, and clarifies the key condition that it must be unused. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like client_add and client_list, and the title 'Delete a client' is reinforced rather than merely restated.

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 gives clear context: use this when you want to delete a client that has no references, and it warns that referenced clients will be refused. It does not name an alternative tool, but no close alternative for deletion exists among siblings, so the guidance is adequate.

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