merchant_ids_delete_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. For a destructive DELETE operation it says nothing about irreversibility, cascade effects on related certificates, required auth scopes, or error behavior — a serious 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 content is tiny, but it wastes space duplicating the identical route string twice in parentheses with zero added information. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain what gets deleted and any caveats. Instead it is a bare route echo, leaving the agent without the behavioral context needed to call it safely.

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?

There is a single required parameter and schema description coverage is 100% ('the id of the requested resource'), so the schema already documents it. The description adds nothing, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting for a one-parameter tool.

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 restates the tool name as a REST route ('DELETE /v1/merchantIds/{id}'), which is essentially a tautology of the identifier. It conveys the HTTP verb and resource path, so it is not misleading, but it adds no differentiation beyond what the name 'merchant_ids_delete_instance' already implies.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as merchant_ids_update_instance, merchant_ids_get_instance, or pass_type_ids_delete_instance. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative routing is offered.

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