vtex_delete_dock

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a dock' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but it doesn't specify permissions required, side effects (e.g., impact on associated resources), error conditions, or what happens upon success. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 easy to parse quickly. This is an example of efficient communication without unnecessary elaboration.

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 deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical context such as what a dock is, the implications of deletion, required permissions, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity and risk associated with deletion operations, more completeness is needed to guide safe and effective use.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'dockId' documented as 'Dock ID to delete'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to find the ID. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 dock' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (dock), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling deletion tools like vtex_delete_brand or vtex_delete_category, nor does it specify what a 'dock' is in this context.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing dock ID), consequences, or when not to use it (e.g., if the dock is in use). The description offers only basic functional information without contextual usage advice.

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