sbis_delete_method

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

The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations' destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false: it says the operation deletes or irreversibly changes data, and that no request is sent unless both confirm_write=true and i_understand_this_modifies_data=true are set. It also discloses a stable return shape: the ok JSON or error envelope.

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 destructive warning is front-loaded, and every line earns its place: the danger statement, API reference, mandatory safety checks, argument meanings, and return contract. It is compact yet information-dense without repeating the schema verbatim.

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 dispatcher, the description covers operation lookup via sbis_search_methods, parameter construction, the safety gates, and expected response shape. It does not detail authentication or the exact error-envelope contents, but given the sibling tools for auth and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains all six parameters: operation_id from the catalog, path_values for path placeholders, query string parameters, JSON body, and the must-be-true confirmation flags. It stops short of giving concrete examples or value constraints, but provides enough meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 clear verb and resource: it executes a destructive endpoint that deletes or irreversibly changes data, and ties it to an operation_id from the catalog. It does not explicitly contrast itself with related siblings like sbis_delete_raw or sbis_write_method, so the distinguishing boundary is slightly implicit.

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?

It gives clear operational guidance: operation_id comes from sbis_search_methods, and the two confirmation flags must be true before anything is sent. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over destructive or non-destructive alternatives, such as sbis_call_method, sbis_write_method, or sbis_delete_raw.

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