vtex_delete_warehouse

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, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, if it affects associated data (e.g., inventory), or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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 ('Delete a warehouse')—a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical context like irreversible effects, error handling, or dependencies (e.g., ensuring the warehouse is empty first). For a mutation tool with high stakes, this minimal description leaves too many operational questions unanswered.

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 (warehouseId is described as 'Warehouse ID to delete'), so the schema already documents the parameter fully. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or sourcing guidance. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 warehouse' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (warehouse), which is specific enough to understand the basic function. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other delete operations in the sibling list (like vtex_delete_brand, vtex_delete_category, etc.) beyond the resource type, making it somewhat generic within the delete tool family.

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 warehouse), consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion), or related tools (like vtex_get_warehouse to check before deletion or vtex_create_warehouse to replace). This leaves the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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