delete_price

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses identification behavior (composite key, disambiguation logic) clearly. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on failure (e.g., if the price doesn't exist, or multiple found without source), the return format, or irreversibility implications beyond the obvious 'delete' semantic.

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?

Well-structured with a clear lead sentence followed by identification details and parameter documentation. Reasonably compact without waste. The Args section is standard and each item earns its place.

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?

While there is an output schema, the description covers parameter semantics well. Some gaps: no mention of error behavior, whether deletion is idempotent, or what the return value indicates. For a 4-param delete operation with no annotations, it's solid but could be more 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 0%, so the description fully compensates. Each parameter (commodity, namespace, date, source) is documented with examples and format details (ISO date YYYY-MM-DD, source tag examples). Particularly valuable is explaining the 'source' parameter's conditional necessity.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('Delete a single price entry') and explains the identification keys (commodity, namespace, date). It's clear what the tool does, though given sibling tools like create_price, get_prices, get_latest_price, create_prices, the description doesn't explicitly distinguish delete from these by name — though the purpose is clear enough.

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 explains when to pass 'source' — 'to disambiguate when multiple prices exist on the same commodity+date (e.g. one user-entered and one fetched from a feed)'. It gives concrete examples of source values and clearly states it's 'Required when multiple prices exist'. This provides useful contextual guidance though it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use vs alternatives.

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