delete_warehouse

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 for a destructive mutation. It says nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, what happens to associated stock records (list_warehouse_stock exists), or whether the call fails if the warehouse is in use.

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 sentence is short and front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. Its brevity is not bloated, though the parenthetical API-version tag contributes little.

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, non-annotated tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum confirm the effect and any caveats. Instead it offers a four-word restatement, leaving the agent without the information needed to call it safely.

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 the single warehouseId parameter, so the schema already explains the input. The description adds no format hints (ID shape, where to obtain it) beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?

"Delete a warehouse" names a verb and a resource, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name with an API-version tag appended. It gives no scope details (hard vs soft delete, what a warehouse represents in Holded) and does not distinguish it from the sibling delete_* tools beyond the resource noun.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as update_warehouse or list_warehouses for verifying the target first. The agent must infer everything from the name alone.

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