Delete purchase order by identifier. - For valid response try integer IDs with value < 1000. Anything above 1000 or non-integers will generate API errors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orderId | Yes | ||
| x-hapi-auth-state | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that non-integer IDs or values above 1000 generate API errors, which is useful behavioral context. However, with no annotations, it does not mention authentication requirements, irreversibility, or success/failure response behavior, leaving significant gaps.
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?
Two sentences are concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence is slightly redundant ('For valid response...' then 'Anything above...') but overall efficient and well-structured.
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 delete operation, the description covers purpose and a key behavioral constraint, but omits response/return info, the auth-state parameter, and any mention of prerequisites or side effects. It is minimally sufficient but not comprehensive.
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?
Description adds meaning to orderId by specifying valid integer range and error conditions, which the schema does not convey. However, it completely ignores the x-hapi-auth-state parameter, and with schema coverage at 0%, the description only partially compensates for parameter documentation.
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?
Description clearly states 'Delete purchase order by identifier' – a specific verb and resource, which distinguishes it from sibling deletePet/deleteUser. The purpose is unambiguous and directly communicated.
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?
Provides a parameter-related hint about valid IDs but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage context is implied (delete an order) but lacks exclusions or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct resources and actions, but updatePet and updatePetWithForm overlap in purpose (both update a pet), creating minor ambiguity. Other pairs like createUser and createUsersWithListInput are clearly different.
The naming mixes verbs (addPet vs createUser, findPetsByStatus vs getPetById) and styles, but each resource area follows a somewhat predictable pattern (get* for reads, update* for updates, delete* for deletes). Not chaotic, but inconsistent.
19 tools is on the heavier side but reasonable for a petstore server covering pets, orders, and users. Each tool serves a distinct need, and the count reflects the multi-domain scope.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for pets, orders, and users, including create, read, update, delete, and search operations. Additional operations like login, logout, and inventory are present. No obvious gaps for the expected domain.