wb_stocks_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses a destructive mutation and the effect 'zeroing them', but it does not state whether the action is irreversible, what permissions are needed, whether records are hard-deleted or only quantity-zeroed, or what response to expect. This is a significant gap for a delete tool.

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 definition is one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical Russian gloss adds little for an English-language agent but is not harmful; the wording could be tightened to avoid the slight delete-versus-zero ambiguity.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal. It gives the core operation but omits usage routing, warehouse_id semantics, and side-effect details, so it is barely adequate 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only partially helps with the 'skus' parameter via 'by SKU'. The required 'warehouse_id' parameter is never explained, and no format or constraints for SKU values are provided, so the description does not compensate enough for the missing schema documentation.

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 operation ('Delete'), a specific resource ('FBS stock records'), and the key criterion ('by SKU'), with the clarifying effect 'zeroing them'. This is enough for an agent to distinguish it from siblings like wb_stocks_get and wb_stocks_update without reading another definition.

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 implies its use case — zeroing stock for the given SKUs — but gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over wb_stocks_update or wb_stocks_get, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage must be inferred from the delete/zero wording.

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