stop_list_export_delete

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. It reiterates the destructive nature via the DELETE method, which is also captured by destructiveHint=true, but does not disclose consequences such as permanent removal, authorization requirements, or the effect on related export files. No additional behavioral traits are explained.

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 a single, concise line that conveys the endpoint and method efficiently. It is front-loaded with the essential information, with no filler words. However, it is somewhat terse and could benefit from a brief plain-language summary without becoming verbose.

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 has no output schema, minimal parameter documentation, and a destructive operation, yet the description provides no context about return values, side effects, or when this deletion is appropriate. It is insufficient for an agent to safely infer behavior or compare with sibling tools.

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 50%: the token parameter has no description, and the tool description does not clarify its meaning beyond being a path parameter. The dry_run parameter is described in the schema (in Russian) but not in the tool description. The description adds no value to the parameter understanding, leaving the token's purpose ambiguous.

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 indicates a DELETE operation on the stop-list export resource identified by token, which implies deleting an export. However, it lacks a plain-language statement of the tool's function and does not distinguish it from the sibling tool api_delete_v2_stop_list_export_token, which targets the same endpoint.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only gives the HTTP endpoint and mentions Python SDK parity, but does not explain scenarios, prerequisites, or why one might choose this over sibling tools such as stop_list_export_tasks or api_delete_v2_stop_list_export_token.

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