Delete a record

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: deletion removes live business data, is irreversible via the API, requires explicit user consent, and deleting an item cascades to variants and stock history. This meaningfully informs an agent about the destructive nature and side effects of the call.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action, the second conveys irreversibility and the confirmation requirement, and the third details an important cascade effect. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and wastes no words.

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?

The tool is simple (two parameters, both documented) and the annotations already provide destructive and read-only flags. The description adds essential safety guidance and a key side effect. It does not explain return values or error behavior, but no output schema exists and the destructive nature is well covered, so this is a minor omission.

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 already covers all parameter meanings with 100% coverage: 'resource' has a descriptive enum and 'id' is explained. The description adds no new parameter syntax or format details, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and a clear resource ('one record from the merchant's Loyverse account'). It is immediately obvious what operation this tool performs, and the generic scope is clarified by the resource parameter. No sibling tool competes with this delete operation, so no further differentiation is needed.

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 clearly establishes when to use the tool: when a record should be deleted. It goes further by mandating user confirmation before invocation, which is strong guidance for safe use. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives, but none of the sibling tools are delete operations, so this is a minor gap.

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