spoolman_delete_vendor

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the responsibility of disclosing side effects. It explicitly warns that deletion cascades to associated filaments, which is a critical behavioral trait for a destructive operation. It does not mention irreversibility or permissions, but the cascade disclosure goes beyond a plain 'delete' statement and covers the most important consequence.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action ('Delete a vendor by ID') and then adds the essential cascading detail. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action and the key side effect (cascade). It could potentially mention that the operation is permanent or irreversible, but 'delete' already implies that. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 input schema already fully documents the only parameter (`id` with type, description, and minimum). Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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') with a specific resource ('vendor by ID') and clearly states the scope via the cascade note. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like spoolman_delete_filament and spoolman_delete_spool by targeting vendors specifically. The action and resource are unambiguous.

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 clearly implies the tool is for removing vendors, and the mention of cascading to associated filaments sets expectations about the tool's broader impact. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like spoolman_update_vendor or spoolman_delete_filament, the purpose is evident from the tool name and description, providing clear context without listing exclusions.

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