delete_vendor

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. The description does disclose the key constraint (can't delete vendors with bills) which is a critical behavioral trait. However, it doesn't describe what happens on failure (error behavior), permanence/reversibility of the deletion, or any affected related records beyond stating the bill precondition.

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?

Efficient and front-loaded. The opening sentence states the purpose immediately. The next two lines state the constraint and workaround. It includes an Args section that's compact. No wasted words, though the description could be considered slightly verbose given the constraint explanation, it earns its space.

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 destructive delete operation with no annotations, but the description covers the most critical behavioral constraint (bill dependency) and provides a clear failure-avoidance path. An output schema exists but the description doesn't need to explain return values. The single-param schema is fully explained. Minor gap: doesn't clarify whether deletion is irreversible or what related history (audit log) might persist.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a clear parameter explanation with a concrete example ('e.g., "000001"'), describing vendor_id as the identifier used to target the vendor. With only one parameter this is adequate — the example anchor format directly addresses the 'Vendor Id' schema label's vagueness. A small deduction because it doesn't mention format rules (leading zeros, length constraints), though for a single param with an example, this is strong.

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 action ('Delete a vendor') with a specific resource and an explicit precondition constraint ('with no bills'). It distinguishes this from siblings like update_vendor, list_vendors, and get_vendor by specifying the destructive delete operation.

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 clearly states when the tool can be used (vendors with no bills) and when it cannot (vendors with any posted or unposted bills), plus provides an explicit workaround: delete bills first then delete vendor. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the direction is clear and actionable.

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