ym_delete_method

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description reinforces this by stating the action deletes or irreversibly changes data. It adds valuable context beyond annotations: both confirm_write=true and i_understand_this_modifies_data=true are required, and 'nothing is sent without both,' which is a strong safety behavior not visible in the schema.

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 front-loaded with the most important fact (DESTRUCTIVE), followed by the target API, safety requirements, arguments, and return format. Every sentence earns its place, and the Args list is compact and readable without unnecessary elaboration.

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 generic destructive catalog method with six parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is nearly complete: it names the target API docs, explains all parameters, gives the required confirmation flags, and states the return envelope. It could slightly expand on optionality of path_values/query/body and prerequisites like authentication, but these are minor gaps given the output schema and existing context.

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 0%, so the parameter documentation in the description carries the full burden. It explains each of the six parameters: operation_id is a catalog id from ym_search_methods, path_values fill path placeholders, query is query-string parameters, body is a JSON body, and both boolean flags must be true. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 identifies a specific action: 'Execute one DESTRUCTIVE endpoint: deletes or irreversibly changes data.' It conveys the scope (a single catalog endpoint from the Yandex Market Partner API) and the destructive nature. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like ym_call_method or ym_delete_raw to differentiate, but the catalog-based operation_id makes the distinction reasonably clear.

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 when to use the tool: for a destructive endpoint whose id was obtained via ym_search_methods. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with alternatives such as ym_call_method (non-destructive) or ym_delete_raw (raw endpoint).

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