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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: no undo, cascading removal of item links, downstream effect on auto-reorder rules, and the open-PO refusal condition. It also clarifies what survives (previously placed purchase orders keep naming the supplier), which an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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?

Front-loads the confirmation warning and the irreversible consequence, then covers refusal conditions. Four dense sentences, each carrying distinct operational facts, though the closing note on retained purchase orders could be tightened.

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?

With no output schema needed for a delete, the description supplies the prerequisites, cascade effects, refusal path, and survival behavior an agent needs to invoke this safely. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented as 'Supplier id from get_suppliers — not a name'. The description only alludes to the supplier obliquely ('naming the supplier') and adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Remove a supplier') and scopes it to the merchant's no-longer-used suppliers, which distinguishes it from hub_update_supplier and hub_delete_* siblings. An agent immediately understands this is a hard removal, not a deactivation.

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?

Explicitly instructs to confirm with the merchant first, states the precondition that blocks deletion (an open purchase order), and names the exact sibling (get_purchase_orders filtered by this supplier) to check eligibility. It also tells the agent what to do instead when refused: receive or cancel the POs.

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