brc_delete_supplier

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the two-step preflight/confirmation flow and warns that 'Passing preflight is not confirmation.' However, it does not describe the behavior of the confirmDelete parameter or the response after successful deletion.

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 (two sentences) with no filler. It front-loads the core action and immediately explains the unique two-step workflow, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (delete with confirmation), the description covers the essential flow and the key parameter usage. It lacks details about the return value or response after the second call, and does not mention alternative approaches like deactivation. Nonetheless, it provides sufficient context 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?

The input schema already covers 75% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds meaningful context for confirmWrite, clarifying that it must only be set true after explicit user confirmation in a later message, which goes beyond the schema's description. Other parameters are not elaborated beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Deletes a BRC supplier by id'), specifying both the verb and the resource, and it implicitly distinguishes from sibling delete tools for other entities (e.g., brc_delete_customer) through the resource name.

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 explains the two-step confirmation process but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., deactivating a supplier via brc_update_supplier). Usage context is clear but lacks exclusions or comparisons to siblings.

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