Delete shopping list

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds valuable context beyond those: it deletes 'everything on it' (items within the list) and describes the confirmation token mechanism. It does not contradict annotations and provides meaningful behavioral detail about the two-step process and the scope of deletion.

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 exactly two sentences with zero redundancy. The first sentence states the core action and scope, and the second explains the required confirmation procedure. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose and adds the operational nuance immediately after, making it easy for an agent 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?

For a destructive tool with a two-step confirmation, the description fully equips the agent: it knows to call twice, that a token must be used, and that the entire list is deleted. The presence of an output schema covers return values, so nothing essential is missing. Given the tool's complexity, this description is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters, with list_id documented as a UUID from list_shopping_lists and confirm_token explained as a token from a previous call. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides; the confirmation flow is explained at the usage level rather than parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Deletes'), the resource ('shopping list'), and its scope ('and everything on it'), which immediately distinguishes it from other delete tools like delete_recipe or delete_cookbook. The confirmation step is also mentioned, adding a unique operational detail that sets it apart from simpler delete tools.

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 explicitly explains the required two-step confirmation flow ('call once to receive a token, then again with that token'), leaving no ambiguity about the call sequence. It does not need to list alternatives because the tool name and scope already make it the only choice for deleting shopping lists, and no sibling does the same job.

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