ozon_perf_delete_method

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

Beyond the annotations that already indicate destructiveHint=true, the description adds crucial behavioral context: it irreversibly changes data, both confirm_write and i_understand_this_modifies_data must be true, and nothing is sent without both. It also states the return envelope shape. These details meaningfully extend the annotations and inform the agent of safety-critical behavior.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the most important warning: DESTRUCTIVE. It then lists arguments compactly and closes with the return format. There is no filler; every sentence adds information the agent needs to call the tool safely and correctly.

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 six-parameter destructive tool with zero parameter descriptions, this definition is complete. It covers the purpose, prerequisites, confirmation requirement, parameter meanings, target API, and return envelope. It even directs the agent to the catalog lookup tool. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this 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?

The input schema provides no descriptions for any of the six parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It explains operation_id as the catalog id, path_values as values for {placeholders}, query as query-string parameters, body as the JSON body, and explicitly says the two boolean flags must be true. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Execute one DESTRUCTIVE endpoint: deletes or irreversibly changes data.' It names the target API and clearly identifies this as the destructive method, distinguishing it from sibling call/write tools. The reference to operation_id from the catalog further clarifies what resource this tool acts upon.

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 makes the usage context clear by labeling the tool as DESTRUCTIVE and requiring explicit confirmation flags. It also tells the agent where to find operation_id (ozon_perf_search_methods). However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with non-destructive alternatives such as ozon_perf_write_method or ozon_perf_call_method, so the guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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