Delete Merchant

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavioral context by stating irreversibility and, more importantly, that move_to_merchant_id merges the deleted merchant's transactions into the target. It omits what happens to transactions when no move target is supplied and says nothing about required permissions or scope.

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 nature is front-loaded in a single clause, and the Args block is tightly scoped to the two parameters. Slightly more structure than strictly necessary for two params, but nothing is redundant.

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 destructive tool the entry is mostly complete: irreversibility, merge behavior, and ID provenance are all present, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. The notable missing piece is the fate of the merchant's transactions (and any other linked records) when move_to_merchant_id is omitted, which an agent needs before invoking an irreversible delete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameters, and it does: merchant_id is identified as coming from get_merchants, and move_to_merchant_id is marked optional with its merge semantics spelled out. It does not distinguish the type/format of IDs beyond their source, but the semantic gap is largely closed.

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 first clause pairs a specific verb and resource ("Delete a merchant") with its key consequence ("irreversible"), which separates it cleanly from the read-oriented sibling get_merchants and from delete_transaction.

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?

Usage is only implied: it tells the agent to source IDs from get_merchants and explains what the optional merge parameter does, but never states when deletion is appropriate, when to prefer update/merge over deletion, or any preconditions. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given.

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