delete_vendor

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

Annotations already indicate destructive intent, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: routed products continue selling, but orders stop being forwarded. Also includes an interaction requirement (confirm with user). No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences, each earning its place. The first states the action and consequence, the second gives critical pre-call protocols. No redundancy or filler.

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 destructive tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral impact and user-interaction requirement. It doesn't mention reversibility or authorization, but overall is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 only a vendorId string with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'name the vendor' but does not explain what vendorId represents, its format, or how to obtain it. This leaves the single parameter's semantics mostly undocumented.

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 a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('fulfillment vendor'), and clarifies the post-deletion behavior (products keep selling, orders stop being forwarded). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_vendor and update_vendor.

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?

It provides explicit before-call instructions: CONFIRM WITH THE USER and name the vendor rather than just the ID. This gives clear context for when to call, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like archive_product or update_vendor.

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