store_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fully discloses what happens on use: the record disappears from queries but is retained on disk, the return value semantics (true/false including false for not found), and the scope limitation. This is rich, honest, and goes beyond what any annotation would typically provide.

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 deliver a high density of information: operation type, persistence effect, return value, not-found behavior, and scope restriction. No words are wasted, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given a moderate 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is unusually complete. It covers what the tool does, the side effects, the return contract, and the scope boundary. An agent can confidently select and invoke this tool without needing additional guidance.

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 does by clarifying that a single record ID is used, implying record_id is the key, and that the operation is confined to the store_scope, which relates to app_id/collection context. While it doesn't explicitly describe each parameter, the names are self-explanatory and the description adds meaningful behavioral context for their use.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Soft-delete') and resource ('one record by ID'), and explains the effect (disappears from get/list/search). It distinguishes from related tools like store_purge_collection by explicitly framing this as a soft-delete with hard removal outside the tool surface.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to soft-delete a single record while preserving it for audit. It also gives an exclusion—hard removal is deliberately not available—which guides usage away from destructive actions. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the 'operator act' phrasing signals when not to use this tool.

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