Delete a packing list

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

Even without annotations, the description discloses the destructive cascade ('for good', 'with its cartons and packed lines'), the irreversibility, and the shipped-list refusal. This is strong transparency for a delete operation.

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?

Three compact sentences front-load the destructive scope, state the critical exception, and offer the correct alternative. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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 destructive action with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description gives the agent everything it needs: scope, irreversibility, refusal condition, and the proper alternative. Nothing material is missing.

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 input schema already documents both parameters thoroughly, including the confirm=true requirement and the accepted forms of packing_list. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate; no compensation needed since coverage is complete.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') plus the resource ('a packing list') and defines the exact scope: 'for good, with its cartons and packed lines.' It clearly distinguishes this destructive operation from listing/showing/creating tools and even states the refusal condition for shipped lists.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: shipped lists are refused, and users are told to cancel a list they no longer want instead of deleting a real shipment. This is concrete routing logic an agent can act on.

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