wafle_gateways_delete

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds crucial behavioral details: 'Destructive and irreversible' and 'Confirm with the user'. It also discloses the failure condition for default gateways, which is not captured in annotations. These details meaningfully exceed the structured data.

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 description is compact and front-loaded. Three short sentences state the action, a key failure condition, and a safety warning, with no extraneous information. Every sentence 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 simple 1-parameter delete operation, the description covers the essential caveat (default store) and warns about irreversibility. It does not mention return values or behavior for non-existent gateways, but these are less critical given the simplicity and the clear warnings.

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?

The schema has one parameter, gateway_id, with type and minimum but no description. The tool description does not explain this parameter beyond the name itself. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but does not explicitly clarify that gateway_id is the unique identifier of the gateway to delete.

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 opens with 'Delete a gateway', a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like wafle_gateways_create, wafle_gateways_update, wafle_gateways_list, and wafle_gateways_test.

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 key usage context: it fails if the gateway is the default for a store, and tells the user to switch the store first. This is clear when-to-use and a necessary precaution, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives like updating instead of deleting.

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