Delete Purchase

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true. The description goes beyond by detailing cascade behavior with specific examples and noting the HTTP 204 response. This adds valuable context about what changes occur and the expected confirmation. However, the description could also mention required permissions or rate limits, which would push it to a 5.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a clear warning and clarification. Each sentence adds value, though the cascade examples could be slightly condensed. Overall, it is well-structured and informative without excessive verbosity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, delete operation) and the annotations already conveying destructiveness, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, destruction behavior, cascade consequences, need for user confirmation, and expected response (HTTP 204). No output schema exists, but the response is described adequately.

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 schema already provides a full description for the single parameter 'id' ('Numeric id of the purchase to delete.'). The description's first sentence reiterates 'by numeric id' but adds no new constraints or format details beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with 'Delete a purchase from NetBox by numeric id,' providing a clear verb (delete), resource (purchase), and method (numeric id). This is sufficiently specific and distinguishes the tool from other delete and non-delete siblings.

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 explicitly warns that the operation is destructive, irreversible, and cascades deletes. It instructs the agent to confirm with the user before calling and provides concrete examples of cascade effects (e.g., deleting a device removes interfaces, ports, IPs). This is excellent guidance on when and how to use the tool.

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