ghl_object_delete_record

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe destructive operation. The description adds that the tool deletes by ID and lists supported objects, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error handling, permission requirements, or side effects beyond what annotations imply.

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 short and to the point, but contains minor redundancy ('Delete Record' repeated from title). The endpoint information is useful but could be condensed. Overall, it is efficient without excessive verbosity.

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?

Given the destructive nature and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the basic operation. However, it lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., record existence) or post-deletion effects, which would help an AI agent handle errors or confirm success. The absence of return value details is acceptable but leaves room for improvement.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (id and schemaKey). The tool description does not add any parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete Record By Id') and the resource ('Supported Objects are business and custom objects'). The verb and resource are unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself from sibling object tools like create, update, and get by focusing solely on deletion.

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 specifies the objects it applies to (business and custom objects) and provides the endpoint, which implies the required parameters (schemaKey, id). It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like batch delete or soft delete, but the name and context make the usage clear.

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