Discogs: delete marketplace listing

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

With no annotations provided, the description shoulders the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'This is irreversible,' which is critical safety information for a delete operation. The instruction to 'confirm with the user before calling' adds a procedural behavioral expectation. It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects, but for a simple delete, irreversibility is the key trait.

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 sentences long and every word earns its place. It front-loads the purpose and immediately follows with the critical safety warning. No fluff or repetition.

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 mutation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains the action, the irreversibility, and a required pre-condition (user confirmation). It lacks a description of what happens after deletion (e.g., confirmation response) but that is not essential given the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation.

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 one required parameter, listing_id, with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the parameter at all, merely referring to 'a marketplace listing.' This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation; the agent must infer from the tool name and property name that listing_id identifies the listing to delete.

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 'Remove a marketplace listing,' which is a specific verb ('remove') and resource ('marketplace listing'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like discogs_create_listing, discogs_update_listing, and discogs_get_listing by indicating the destructive action.

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 a clear precondition: 'This is irreversible — confirm with the user before calling.' This tells the agent when to use the tool (only after user confirmation) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios. A slight upgrade would be naming discogs_update_listing as an alternative for non-destructive changes.

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