Delete variant inventory

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

With no annotations provided, the description must itself disclose behavioral traits like destructiveness, permissions, or side effects. The description only repeats the action 'delete' in another language and provides zero transparency about what this operation actually does to the data, making it dangerously incomplete for a deletion tool.

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 short phrase, which is concise but also severely under-specified. Brevity only serves the user if all necessary information is packed in; here it simply restates the tool name, so the brevity is a deficiency rather than a virtue.

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?

This is a deletion tool with two required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must provide enough context for the agent to operate. However, it offers nothing beyond a literal translation of the title, omitting essential details about required identifiers, consequences, or conditions for use. The tool is simple, but the description is still far from complete.

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 lists 'variant_id' and 'manage_number' as required strings but provides no descriptions for them. The description does not clarify what these parameters represent, how they relate to each other, or any format expectations. With 0% schema description coverage and no compensation in the description, the agent cannot confidently construct a valid request.

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 'バリアント在庫削除' translates to 'variant inventory deletion,' which directly restates the tool name and title without adding operational detail. It does not distinguish this delete operation from related tools like rms_get_variant_inventory or rms_upsert_variant_inventory, so it fails to clarify what makes this tool unique.

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 gives no guidance on when to invoke this tool, what preconditions must be met, or how it differs from sibling tools such as rms_update_inventory or rms_upsert_variant_inventory. There is no mention of appropriate contexts, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent without any usage direction.

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