suppliers_delete

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 disclosure. It does an excellent job explaining behavioral traits: the record is marked but not removed, existing invoices remain intact, and new ANAF-synced invoices trigger automatic restoration. This contextualizes the side effects and reversibility well beyond what a generic 'delete' would imply.

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?

Four sentences, all information-dense and zero waste. Each sentence provides distinct value: the operation type, the persistence state, the invoice preservation guarantee, and the auto-restoration behavior. Well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the operation semantics, side effects, data preservation guarantees, and edge-case behavior (ANAF restoration). There is no output schema to explain, and the parameters are simple uuids fully covered by the schema.

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 100%, so parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but with full coverage the baseline is 3; the description's contextual explanation about behavior on delete gives a small boost by clarifying what the uuid deletion actually accomplishes.

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 verb (soft-delete), the resource (supplier record), and the critical scope detail that it is a soft delete, not permanent removal. It distinguishes from suppliers_bulk_delete and other delete tools by clarifying the soft-delete semantics.

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 this tool versus alternatives by explaining it's a soft delete (not permanent), and notes that incoming invoices remain intact and restoration via ANAF sync can occur. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, but the soft-delete vs. permanent-delete contrast provides clear context for choosing this over a bulk or permanent delete alternative.

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