wb_pass_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('delete') but never discloses whether deletion is permanent, reversible, or what side effects occur. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the core action immediately. The Russian translation in parentheses is slightly redundant for an English-facing agent, but the description otherwise avoids unnecessary detail.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of context, yet it covers only the basic action. It omits the practical context an agent needs: the lifecycle of a warehouse pass, the consequence of deletion, or how this relates to sibling pass tools in a workflow.

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 0%, so the description was expected to compensate for the undocumented pass_id parameter. The description only implies that pass_id identifies the pass to delete, adding little beyond what the schema already shows. It does not explain how to obtain a valid pass_id or any format constraints.

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 ('warehouse pass'), clearly stating the tool's core action. The verb distinguishes it from the sibling trio wb_pass_create, wb_pass_update, and wb_passes_list, though it never names them explicitly. The Russian parenthetical 'удалить пропуск' is redundant but not misleading.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus wb_pass_create, wb_pass_update, or wb_passes_list. There are no preconditions (e.g., the pass must exist), no exclusions, and no mention of related workflow steps like looking up pass_id via wb_passes_list first. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context.

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