delete_catalog_zone

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states 'Delete a catalog zone' without clarifying whether the deletion is permanent, reversible, or has cascading effects on dependent entities. The lack of any safety warnings or side-effect information leaves the agent without important context for a destructive 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 extremely concise at four words, with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action. However, it sacrifices important detail for brevity, so while structurally efficient, it does not earn a perfect score for usefulness.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the basic function. However, for a delete operation, the absence of behavioral notes (permanence, dependencies) and usage context makes it minimally adequate rather than complete. The sibling set includes related catalog zone operations, yet no cross-references or conditions are provided.

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 already provides 100% coverage by documenting the required 'id' parameter as 'Catalog zone ID'. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but given the schema's clarity, this meets the baseline. No further elaboration is needed.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Delete a catalog zone' uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on other entity types (e.g., emails zones, channels, placements). Even without additional context, an agent can identify this as the deletion operation for catalog zones.

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 on when to use this tool or any alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, related operations (e.g., get_catalog_zone, update_catalog_zone), or conditions under which deletion is appropriate. This is purely a statement of action.

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