customers.delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure, yet it fails to mention that this is a destructive operation, whether deletion is permanent, or if it cascades to related entities (e.g., payment methods visible in customers.listPaymentMethods).

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 four-word description is efficiently structured and front-loaded with no wasted language, though its extreme brevity contributes to under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It should disclose irreversibility, side effects, or related data impact.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only implicitly hints that the 'id' parameter refers to a customer ID. It does not document the parameter format, constraints, or that it is required.

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 identifies the resource ('Ryft customer'), distinguishing this from sibling operations like customers.create or customers.update. It is clear but minimal, lacking scope details.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like customers.update, nor does it warn about the irreversible nature of deletion or prerequisites (e.g., zero balance requirements).

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