delete_supplier

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals this is a destructive operation, but the description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the deletion is permanent or soft, whether it cascades to received documents or references, or what errors occur when the supplier is in use. For a destructive operation this is a significant gap.

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 single sentence contains no filler, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. Nothing is front-loaded about consequences or scope because nothing beyond the verb is present.

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 mutation with an undocumented required parameter and no output schema, the description should disclose irreversibility, side effects on related records, and failure conditions. None of that is present, leaving the definition insufficient for safe invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 50%: company_id documents its default fallback, but the required id parameter has no description in either the schema or the tool description. The description offers no compensation, so the agent gets no confirmation that id refers to a supplier identifier or how to obtain it.

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?

"Elimina un fornitore" translates directly to "delete a supplier," which is a restatement of the tool name delete_supplier rather than an explanation of its scope. It gives no detail distinguishing it from siblings like update_supplier or get_supplier beyond the verb implied by the name itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to delete a supplier versus updating or deactivating one, and no mention of prerequisites such as whether the supplier must have no linked documents. The agent must infer all usage conditions from the name alone.

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