client_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly signals a destructive action, but it does not mention irreversibility, cascading effects on related resources, authentication requirements, or result behavior. A delete tool needs more transparency about consequences.

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 short sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is efficient, though slightly under-specified in behavioral terms; it leans toward terseness rather than rich, front-loaded context.

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 one-parameter delete tool with full schema coverage, the basic statement is close to sufficient. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits important context about irreversibility and side effects, so it is not fully complete.

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 schema fully documents the sole required parameter, clientId, with 100% description coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the load and the description adds no extra semantic value about the parameter.

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 verb ('Delete') and a precise resource ('OAuth2 client'), making it immediately clear what the tool does. It also distinguishes this tool from sibling client operations like create, update, get, list, and count, and from other resource delete tools.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as client_update or client_create. There are no prerequisites, warnings, or context about when deletion is appropriate, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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