delete_store_order

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

The description adds behavioral traits beyond annotations: 'Authenticated via API key', 'Max 10 concurrent requests', 'Respects read-only and dry-run modes', and 'cannot be undone'. It does not contradict annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), though it could explicitly mention idempotency. Overall, it provides useful extra context.

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 well-structured with a clear opening, bullet-like Args, and a Returns line. It is front-loaded and concise, though the operational details (API key, rate limits) could be slightly trimmed. Still efficient overall.

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 covers the tool's purpose, parameters, return value, and operational constraints. It references sibling tools (list_ecommerce_stores, list_accounts) and notes integration context. For a delete operation with output schema and annotations, it is fairly complete, though it could mention what happens if order doesn't exist.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides an 'Args' section that explains each parameter: store_id (obtain from list_ecommerce_stores), order_id (ID to delete), and account (optional, with usage notes). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Permanently delete an e-commerce order from a store' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like delete_store_cart and delete_store_customer by explicitly mentioning the deletion of an order and its lines.

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 notes that the action is permanent and cannot be undone, and provides context about manual vs synced stores, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., update_store_order vs delete_store_order_line). The guidelines are more about operational constraints (auth, rate limits) rather than usage differentiation.

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