Delete Tenant

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

Annotations already establish destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is at least machine-readable. The description adds no behavioral context of its own: it does not say whether deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to providers/clients/tokens/domains, or whether it fails when dependent resources exist. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes nothing beyond them.

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 certainly short and front-loaded, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It consists of four words that duplicate the title, so no sentence earns a place by conveying new information.

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, non-reversible-sounding operation on a top-level tenant object with no output schema and a rich sibling set, the description is completely inadequate. An agent gets no warning about cascade deletion, no recovery information, and no confirmation guidance.

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?

There is a single required parameter (id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. Per the rubric baseline, high coverage with no compensating detail in the description yields a 3; the description adds no meaning about id format or sourcing (e.g., from tenants_list).

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus tenants_get, tenants_list, or tenants_providers_delete, and no mention of confirming intent before an irreversible tenant-wide removal. Nothing in the description indicates prerequisites or consequences that would inform tool selection.

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