ListingsItems20200901_deleteListingsItem

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'Delete' without explaining side effects, reversibility, permissions, failure modes, or what happens to associated content. The 'not here' clause is ambiguous about where execution occurs and does not substitute for behavioral disclosure.

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 text is compact and the core action is expressed in one clause, but 'Catalog entry' is a vague fragment and the action is placed last, after the ambiguous 'not here' note. It is acceptable but not a well-front-loaded definition.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits prerequisites, side effects, expected response, and the relationship to the unversioned ListingsItems_deleteListingsItem sibling. The deployment note is the only extra context, and it is too ambiguous to make the definition 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 input schema declares zero properties and zero required parameters, so there is no parameter-level documentation gap for the description to fill; the 0-parameter baseline applies. The description names the resource being operated on, and the additionalProperties:true looseness is not addressed, though no concrete params are defined.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Delete a listings item for a selling partner.' This makes the operation identifiable. However, it does not distinguish this versioned tool from the sibling ListingsItems_deleteListingsItem, and the opening 'Catalog entry' fragment adds no purpose information.

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 this delete operation should be chosen over ListingsItems_deleteListingsItem, getListingsItem, or other ListingsItems tools. The cryptic 'Runs in your Kuundo deployment, not here' hints at a deployment constraint but does not state a concrete usage condition or exclusion.

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