wb_supply_trbx_delete

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It says 'delete,' which implies a mutation, but does not state whether the deletion is irreversible, whether the boxes must currently belong to the supply, or what happens to associated stickers or barcodes. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 English sentence is short, direct, and front-loaded. The Russian parenthetical is redundant but harmless; overall the description is easy to scan and contains no unnecessary fluff beyond that translation.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, this one-line description is thin for a destructive mutation. It omits prerequisites, reversibility, validation behavior, and failure semantics. Although parameter complexity is low, the missing context makes the description adequate but not 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?

The description maps both parameters to domain concepts: trbx_ids are the boxes and supply_id is the supply. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not clarify ID formats, validation rules, or the requirement that the listed boxes belong to the given supply. It offers minimal compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

States a specific operation ('Delete boxes from a supply') with a clear verb and resource. The object 'boxes' distinguishes it from deleting a whole supply and from sibling tools like wb_supply_trbx_add/list/stickers, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites such as supply status, nor does it contrast with related tools like wb_supply_trbx_add or wb_supply_trbx_list. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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