حذف فروشگاه TheyPaid

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does most of it well: it discloses that deletion is permanent and non-reversible, that the current store name must be confirmed exactly, and that a 2FA code may be required. It omits cascade effects (assets, API keys, invoices) and what happens on a name mismatch, which would matter for a destructive call.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing, with the destructive nature and irreversibility front-loaded ahead of the preconditions. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 zero annotations and no output schema, the description covers the safety essentials but not the surrounding consequences: whether the store must be empty or inactive first, what happens to linked assets/API keys, or what is returned on success. Adequate for the core action, incomplete for a delete in a store with many related sibling operations.

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 and it does only partially: it clarifies that confirmStoreName must match the current name exactly (beyond the bare 1-100 char constraint) and that code is a 2FA code. It never mentions storeId, leaving one of three parameters completely undocumented, and 'sometimes' gives no rule for when code is required.

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?

States a specific verb (deletes permanently) and resource (the store and its settings) in TheyPaid, which clearly separates it from update/setup/select siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming the softer alternative (theypaid_set_store_active), so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 implies when to use it by flagging that the action is irreversible and needs exact-name confirmation, and it mentions a conditional 2FA step. But it never tells the agent when NOT to use it or points at the deactivation alternative, so guidance remains inferred.

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