Delete Listing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it reveals only that the operation removes one locale's listing. It does not explain the confirmation mechanism implied by the confirm and confirmation_token parameters, whether the deletion targets the draft edit or published store listing, whether the action is reversible, or what happens if confirmation is absent. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 is concise and front-loaded, but this is under-specification rather than efficient completeness given the tool's four parameters and confirmation flow. The sentence earns its place, yet substantial information about confirmation behavior and usage context is absent.

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?

The description is inadequate for a destructive tool with four parameters, a confirmation workflow, and no annotations. It omits the confirmation requirement, prerequisites, and the semantics of the confirm/confirmation_token pair. While an output schema exists to cover return values, the missing operational context leaves an agent ill-equipped to call the tool safely and correctly.

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 50%, leaving confirm and confirmation_token undocumented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning and does not compensate for this gap, so an agent cannot determine the role of the confirmation parameters—critical for successfully invoking a destructive operation. The description contributes nothing beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Delete one locale's store listing' names a specific verb (Delete) and resource (store listing) with an explicit scope qualifier ('one locale's'). This clearly differentiates it from delete_all_listings, though it does not name that sibling directly. It conveys purpose effectively within a single short sentence.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_all_listings, update_listing, or clone_listing_to_locale. An agent cannot tell from the description what conditions warrant deleting a single locale's listing versus bulk deletion or updating. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or best practices.

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