vtex_delete_payment_provider

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, it doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, requires special permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting existing orders), or what happens on success/failure. This leaves critical behavioral traits unaddressed.

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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical context such as error handling, return values, permissions required, or impact on related data (e.g., whether deletion affects payment processing). This leaves the agent with significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 'providerId' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or where to find the ID), so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding value.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a payment provider'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other deletion tools like vtex_delete_brand or vtex_delete_category, which follow the same pattern.

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 the provider ID from vtex_get_payment_provider or vtex_list_payment_providers), nor does it warn about consequences of deletion or suggest alternatives like vtex_update_payment_provider for modifications.

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