Shipping Carrier Options Delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new context — the required write_shipping scope and API version — but says nothing about what happens to the option's configuration or whether the deletion is recoverable.

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?

Four short lines, action first, followed by endpoint, scope and version — easy to scan with no filler. The HTTP/API-version metadata is arguably boilerplate but is at least uniformly formatted and placed after the essential information.

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 two-parameter delete, the description plus annotations (destructive, idempotent, open-world) and the auth scope give the agent what it needs to invoke correctly. Remaining gaps — side effects on existing carrier configuration and response body — are modest for a terminal delete operation.

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%, so both parameters are already documented. The path template confirms carrier_id/option_id nesting order, which is mildly additive but not meaningfully beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb + resource ('Delete a carrier option') with the exact HTTP path, so it is unmistakably a delete of a nested option rather than of the carrier itself. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like tiendanube_shipping_carriers_delete or tiendanube_shipping_carrier_options_update, leaving the boundary to be inferred.

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 delete versus disable/update an option, nor any warning about prerequisites (e.g., whether an option in use can be removed). The agent must infer usage purely from the name and endpoint.

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