Delete custom object record

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

The description says 'Destructive.' which merely restates the destructiveHint: true annotation. It adds no additional behavioral context such as irreversibility, side effects, authorization requirements, or response behavior. With annotations present, the description fails to add value beyond what annotations already declare.

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 extremely short and front-loaded ('Delete a custom object record.'). It is efficient with no wasted words, though the succeeding sentence 'Destructive.' is redundant given the annotation. Still, conciseness is a strength.

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 operation with three parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not mention what happens after deletion (return value), idempotency behavior (though annotation hints idempotent), or any operational details. Agents cannot fully anticipate the tool's behavior from this description alone.

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 only 33% (only locationId has a description). The tool description does not clarify the role of recordId or schemaKey, and does not compensate for the missing schema documentation. Agents receive no explanation of these required parameters from the description.

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 (Delete) and resource (custom object record), which is clear enough to distinguish from other resource-specific delete tools. However, it relies on the tool name and title for precision, and does not explicitly differentiate from sibling delete tools (e.g., ghl_delete_contact) beyond the resource type.

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 tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, or conditions that favor this tool over similar delete operations. The description provides no usage context or exclusions.

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