remove_bottle

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It does reveal what gets destroyed ('inventory row... including all bottles counted in its quantity'), which is valuable. However, it omits other behavioral details such as irreversibility, permission requirements, or any cascading effects beyond the quantity.

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 a single, tightly written sentence. 'Delete an inventory row by ID' front-loads the primary action, and the qualifying phrase about bottles counted in quantity earns its place by conveying important scope. There is no 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 one-parameter delete tool, the description covers the core action and the destructive scope. Yet the absence of any annotations or output schema means more context would help: no mention of permanence, expected return/confirmation, or prerequisites. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'bottle_id' parameter. It partially does so by saying deletion happens 'by ID', mapping the integer parameter to row identity. Yet it does not explicitly name 'bottle_id' or add format or constraint details, though the parameter name itself is self-descriptive.

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'), a specific resource ('an inventory row'), and the exact selection mechanism ('by ID'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling update/list/add tools, and the added scope ('including all bottles counted in its quantity') clarifies the full extent of the operation.

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 gives no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_bottle or update_remaining. There are no conditions, exclusions, or any 'use this when...' guidance, so the agent is left to infer usage from the verb alone.

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