payment_mode_deletePermanently remove a payment method from the shop by its ID. Use data_list_payments_modes to find the ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID of the payment method to delete |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states 'Permanently remove', consistent with the destructiveHint annotation. It adds the behavioral context of irreversibility, which annotations don't explicitly convey. No contradiction.
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 two sentences with no wasted words, front-loading the core action and then providing a reference to the sibling tool for ID retrieval.
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 tool with one parameter, clear annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, input source, and effect fully.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for the 'id' parameter. The description adds minimal extra value by mentioning to find the ID via another tool, but the schema already documents the parameter adequately.
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 the verb 'remove' and specifies the resource 'payment method from the shop by its ID', which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like payment_mode_add (add) and data_list_payments_modes (list).
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 explicitly advises using data_list_payments_modes to find the ID, providing clear guidance on how to obtain the required input. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is clear.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct entity or action (account, client, order, product, payment, VAT, etc.), with clear naming like 'account_create' vs 'account_edit' and 'data_list_' prefixed listings. No overlapping purposes detected.
All tool names use snake_case and follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., account_create, client_add, data_list_clients). Even compound names like auth_login_with_otp adhere to this structure.
41 tools is high but justified by the wide scope of a POS/accounting system (accounts, clients, orders, products, payments, VAT, reports). Slightly above the typical range but well-scoped.
The tool surface covers CRUD for all major entities (clients, departments, products, VAT, payment modes, orders), plus queries, reports, and authentication. No obvious gaps for a small business management server.