vtex_delete_brand

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a brand' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but it doesn't specify permissions required, side effects (e.g., impact on associated products), error conditions, or response format. This is inadequate for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise at three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the tool's function.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context: what happens after deletion (confirmation, error handling), dependencies, or system-specific behaviors. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral guidance needed for safe invocation.

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%, with the single parameter 'brandId' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or validation rules. This meets the baseline of 3 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?

The description 'Delete a brand' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (brand), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'vtex_create_brand' and 'vtex_update_brand' by specifying the destructive operation. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the scope or system context beyond what's implied by the tool name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing brand), consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion), or relationships with sibling tools like 'vtex_list_brands' for selection or 'vtex_get_brand' for verification. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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