ListingsItems_deleteListingsItem

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states that execution happens in the user's Kuudo deployment rather than here, which is useful, but it does not disclose the destructive consequences, authorization requirements, reversibility, or response behavior of a delete 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 description is short and mostly front-loaded, but 'Catalog entry.' is a low-value fragment that adds confusion rather than clarity. The remaining two sentences are concise, though the structural flow is choppy.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It tells the user where execution happens and what action to take, but it omits how the target listing item is identified, what prerequisites exist, and what side effects or results should be expected. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly with confidence.

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 zero parameters and 100% described coverage, so the baseline for no parameters applies. The description adds nothing about parameters, but none are present to explain. It does not compensate for implicit caller-supplied parameters that may be accepted via additionalProperties, but the schema provides no such obligations.

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 and object: 'Delete a listings item for a selling partner.' This clearly identifies the action and resource. However, the opening fragment 'Catalog entry.' is confusing and does not clarify which of the several ListingsItems deletion/update siblings this tool maps to.

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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like ListingsItems20200901_deleteListingsItem, patchListingsItem, or putListingsItem. The phrase 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here' is contextual but does not explain selection criteria or exclusions.

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