cigchat_shop_locations_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns 'DESTRUCTIVE: irreversible' and explains the two-step confirmation process, which is critical for a delete operation. The mention of the required token scope adds important context about auth requirements.

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, densely informative sentence that front-loads the action ('Delete location') and includes the endpoint, destructiveness warning, usage instructions, and auth requirement. Every element is necessary and earns its place, with no unnecessary fluff.

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 core aspects: what it does, how to use it safely, required permissions, and the impact statement step. Since there is no output schema, it does not describe return values or post-deletion effects, but for a destructive delete tool this is a minor gap. Overall, the context is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, with the `confirm` parameter already described in detail in the schema (confirmation token from previous response, call without it first, show impact statement, pass token after approval). The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool deletes a shop location and includes the explicit API endpoint [DELETE /shop/locations/{locationId}/delete], making the action unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like other delete operations (e.g., cigchat_shop_products_delete), relying on the tool name for distinction.

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 provides a clear usage workflow: call once without `confirm` to receive an impact statement, then pass the confirmation token after human approval. It also states the required permission scope ('Manage Team'), offering concrete guidance. It does not mention alternatives or explicitly describe when not to use the tool, but the destructive nature and confirm flow are well conveyed.

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