Delete a customer from the Chirak store directory by providing their UUID. Keep customer records clean and accurate by removing unwanted entries.
Delete a customer from the Chirak store directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Customer UUID to delete (required). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | Result data payload from Chirak API. | |
| success | No | Status of the tool execution. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive mutation. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., irreversibility, side effects, or required permissions). Since annotations cover the main risk, the description is adequate but not enriching.
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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and resource directly. Every word is necessary, with no fluff or redundant detail.
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 an output schema present, the description is sufficient. It conveys the core function, and the schema and annotations fill in parameter details and safety profile. The only minor gap is a lack of explicit mention of irreversibility, but the destructiveHint annotation already conveys that.
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 fully describes the sole parameter 'id' as 'Customer UUID to delete (required).' Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain the parameter further. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds nothing beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('customer from the Chirak store directory'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_product. It unambiguously states the action and object.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_customer or list_customers). It also omits important context like permanence or conditions under which deletion is appropriate, leaving usage to be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.