avito_delete_method

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds value by specifying that both confirm_write and i_understand_this_modifies_data must be true, and that nothing is sent without them. It also describes the JSON return format. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise, with the destructive intent front-loaded and the argument list clearly formatted. Every sentence contributes value, from the API reference to the return format. No redundant or promotional language.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no schema coverage) and that an output schema exists, the description covers the essential usage: destructive operation, required confirmation, argument meanings, and return structure. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. avito_delete_raw, but the core invocation requirements are well addressed.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of parameter explanation. It lists all six parameters and gives functional meanings: operation_id from the catalog, path_values for placeholders, query as query-string, body as JSON, and the two boolean flags that must be true. This is sufficient for an agent to understand each parameter's role, though it could elaborate on path_values format.

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's purpose: 'Execute one DESTRUCTIVE endpoint: deletes or irreversibly changes data.' This specifies the verb (execute) and resource (destructive endpoint), and the destructive nature distinguishes it from read-only siblings. It also names the target API, providing concrete context.

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 implies usage for destructive operations by emphasizing 'DESTRUCTIVE' and the required confirmation flags, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like avito_write_method or avito_delete_raw. It only references avito_search_methods for operation_id, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate versus others.

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