Delete Rappi address

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by highlighting the explicit_user_intent consent gate, signaling this harmful action must not be invoked without direct user request. It does not contradict the annotations — 'Delete' aligns with destructiveHint=true. No contradiction.

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?

Two brief sentences with no filler — each carries meaning: one states the purpose, one states the consent requirement. Appropriately sized for a simple destructive tool. The consent requirement is positioned second rather than first, which for a destructive action is a minor front-loading nit, but overall efficient.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and low param coverage, the description is thin. It omits what happens on success, whether deleting the active address has side effects, and any constraints (e.g., cannot delete a default address). An agent only learns the core action and consent gate but not the consequences of the call.

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 only 33% (below the 50% threshold), so the description should compensate for the undocumented parameters. It does not explain address_id or response_format at all; it only re-emphasizes explicit_user_intent, which the schema already documents. address_id is self-explanatory by name, but response_format's behavior (markdown vs json output) is left unexplained.

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 a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a saved address'). It clearly separates this from its siblings create_address, update_address, and set_active_address by the delete verb alone. The title 'Delete Rappi address' is nearly identical, but the description adds the word 'saved', implying it acts on stored addresses rather than transient ones, giving slight extra meaning.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives in the sibling set (update_address, set_active_address). It doesn't state prerequisites such as whether the address must not be the active one, or when deletion is appropriate versus editing. The only usage signal is the consent requirement, which speaks to authorization, not selection context.

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