store_delete_shipping_carrier

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'Delete' is consistent. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., permanence, cascading effects, or that the operation cannot be undone). Since annotations cover the primary destructive nature, the description meets minimum expectations but provides no extra value.

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 extremely concise at three words, which is front-loaded but arguably under-specified. It is not verbose, but it lacks sufficient substance to be considered well-structured for the purpose of guiding an agent. The brevity might be appropriate for a well-known pattern, but here it leaves gaps that other dimensions already penalize.

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 operation, the description is too sparse. It does not mention that the deletion is permanent, whether it affects associated shipping rates or zones, or any other consequences. Annotations provide destructiveHint, but the description adds nothing to the overall context, leaving an agent to wonder about side effects. Given the simplicity of the tool, it could still be improved with one or two sentences of context.

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 schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, and there is a notable issue: the schema for shippingCarrierId says 'ID of the shipping carrier that needs to be returned' which is misleading for a delete operation, but this is a schema defect, not a description issue. The description itself does not clarify or augment parameter meanings, so the score remains at 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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('shipping carrier'), which clearly identifies the primary action and target. It is distinct from sibling delete tools like 'store_delete_shipping_rate' by naming the carrier explicitly, though it does not elaborate on the scope or context. The name and description together make the purpose clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusion conditions. An agent would have to infer context from the name alone, with no direction on when to choose this over similar delete operations like store_delete_shipping_rate or store_delete_shipping_zone.

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