Delete store listing for a language

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Entirely' hints that all localized fields for that language are wiped, but it says nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, whether the edit must subsequently be committed, or whether the operation fails for a language that has no listing. For a destructive mutation with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though there is very little content to structure and no scoping caveat given the brevity.

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, no-annotation tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum flag irreversibility and the edit/commit workflow. The schema fully covers parameters, but the behavioral half of the picture an agent needs before invoking a delete is missing.

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 100%, so editId, language (BCP-47), and packageName are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Removes the store listing for one localized language entirely.' The scoping phrase 'for one localized language' clearly distinguishes it from the opposite-scoped play_list_listings/play_get_listing. It does not, however, name a sibling it could be confused with, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus play_update_listing (which can blank a listing) or play_delete_all_images, and no prerequisites stated. The implicit dependency that editId must come from play_create_edit and that a commit is required is left entirely to the schema and sibling names.

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