Shipping Carriers Delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description still adds the required auth scope (write_shipping) and the concrete HTTP verb/path and API version, which is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot supply.

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, front-loaded with the action, followed by endpoint, scope and version. No filler, though the HTTP verb line partly restates the tool name.

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 one-parameter call the description covers endpoint and auth scope, and annotations cover the destructive/idempotent semantics. It stops short of saying what collateral effects exist (e.g. carrier options attached to the carrier) or what happens when the ID does not exist.

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 coverage is 100% with the single 'id' parameter documented as 'Carrier ID'. The description adds nothing about the identifier format (string vs numeric) or how to obtain it, so the schema does all the work and 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Delete a shipping carrier', which is unambiguous against the surrounding carriers_list/get/create/update siblings. It is not explicit about the sibling it is not, but the verb alone disambiguates within this family.

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 'Required scope: write_shipping' line is a genuine usage prerequisite an agent must satisfy before calling. Beyond that there is no when-to-use vs when-not guidance, no mention of irreversibility warnings or confirmation flow, and no pointer to carriers_get to verify the ID first.

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