Delete Item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the operation is a write that sets status to 'closed', that items can be relisted later, and that a mismatched site_id causes a 403 rejection. This gives the agent a solid safety and reversibility picture, though it does not enumerate every possible side effect.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, status effect, reversibility, critical caveat, and examples. Every sentence earns its place, and the important site_id warning is bolded for prominence.

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 sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly: it explains the operation, the state change, reversibility, the ownership requirement, and provides usage examples. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not needed. Minor omissions like behavior for already-closed items do not significantly hurt completeness.

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 top-level schema description coverage is 0%, but the child schema already documents item_id, site_id, and account. The description adds significant value by explaining the critical ownership constraint for site_id and by giving real examples that map item ID prefixes to the correct site_id values.

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 action with a specific verb and resource: 'Close/finish a MercadoLibre listing.' It further clarifies the misleading tool name by noting the item is set to 'closed' and can be relisted later, distinguishing it from permanent deletion and from the sibling relist_item.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to close or finish a listing. It also provides critical operational guidance about site_id matching the owning authenticated profile, with concrete examples mapping item ID prefixes to site IDs. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.

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