wb_supply_delete

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly identifies this as a destructive operation and notes an important precondition ('empty active'). It does not explain irreversibility, failure behavior, or permission requirements, but 'delete' combined with the precondition provides a baseline level of transparency.

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 with no filler. The parenthetical Russian translation adds useful context for the domain without bloating the text.

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 one-parameter destructive action with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the action, the target resource, and the required supply state. It could be improved by noting that deletion is permanent or by pointing to related supply tools, but the core information needed to invoke it correctly is present.

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 no description for supply_id and coverage is 0%, so the description is expected to compensate. It identifies the entity as an 'FBS supply', which clarifies what supply_id refers to, but it does not explain the ID format or how to obtain a valid supply_id. The low parameter count keeps this gap from being severe.

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 names a specific verb ('Delete'), a specific resource ('FBS supply'), and a clear precondition ('empty active'). This makes its purpose obvious and distinguishes it from sibling tools like wb_supply_create, wb_supply_detail, and wb_supply_deliver.

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 phrase 'empty active FBS supply' implies when the tool is applicable: only supplies that are empty and active can be deleted. However, there is no explicit guidance about alternatives or what to do when the supply is non-empty or inactive, so usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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