delete_stock_item

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior, but the description adds substantial context: failure conditions, race-condition warning, and a specific error with a resolution (Company Data → Rewrite). This goes far beyond annotations, revealing realistic edge cases and constraints.

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 concise yet information-dense. It opens with the core action, then lists failure conditions, sequencing advice, and a known workaround—all within four sentences. Every sentence provides actionable value without redundancy.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: success/failure conditions, concurrency concerns, and a known permanent failure with a manual fix. Given the tool's destructive nature and potential for confusion, the description is fully complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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 fully documents the single parameter 'name' with its description 'Exact name of the stock item to delete' (100% coverage). The description does not add additional parameter detail, but it does imply the need for exactness by stating deletion behavior. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the action: 'Delete a stock item from TallyPrime' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_voucher and delete_master by explicitly targeting stock items, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit conditions for use, such as failing when transactions exist, and sequencing advice to delete vouchers first to avoid races. It also mentions a known failure scenario and suggests a manual fix. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for other resource types, the context is sufficient for proper usage.

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