حذف دارایی از فروشگاه

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key traits: the removal is permanent, it may halt payment acceptance for that asset, user confirmation is required, and a two-step verification code may be needed. It does not say whether wallet settings are recoverable or what happens on failure, keeping it below a 5.

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, zero padding: the destructive scope is front-loaded, followed by the prerequisite/2FA caveat. Every clause 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?

For a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main risks (irreversibility, confirmation, 2FA). It still leaves the optional storeId and the mandatory confirm=true semantics unexplained, which an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 must compensate. It hints at the 6-digit `code` parameter (two-factor login code) and at `confirm` ('after user confirmation'), but never explains `storeId` (optional, likely the selected store) or that `confirm` must be true.

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 and resource: permanently removes the selected asset and its receiving-wallet configuration from the store. The word 'permanently' plus 'from the store' implicitly separates it from the toggle-style sibling theypaid_set_asset_status, though no sibling is named.

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?

'پس از تأیید کاربر اجرا کنید' gives a precondition but not a true when-to-use/when-not rule, and the natural alternative (theypaid_set_asset_status, disabling rather than deleting) is never named. Usage context is implied only via 'may stop accepting payments with that asset'.

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