Delete Vendor

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds specific context: 'cannot be undone' and 'may affect existing expenses referencing this vendor'. This provides behavioral transparency beyond annotations, though no details on authorization or return value are given (output schema exists).

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 concise, front-loaded with the key action in English, and includes a warning. The bilingual repetition adds slight redundancy but does not detract significantly. Every sentence provides essential information.

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 one parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering safety traits, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and key behavioral warning. It mentions the main side effect (affecting expenses), which is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 has 100% coverage with a single required 'id' parameter. The description mentions 'by their ID' but does not add any additional semantics or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the verb 'delete' and the resource 'vendor', and specifies the action is permanent. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_vendors', 'get_vendor', 'create_vendor', and 'update_vendor' by focusing on deletion.

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 warns that the action cannot be undone and may affect existing expenses, providing implicit usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., if vendor has pending expenses).

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