delete_price_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the deletion action without mentioning side effects, permissions, reversibility, or response behavior, leaving significant gaps 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?

The description is two sentences long, concise, and front-loaded with the action. Every word serves a purpose: the first sentence states what it does, the second explains its legacy role. No unnecessary text.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is minimally adequate. However, it fails to clarify the ID type mismatch, leaves out return value or error handling, and omits any prerequisites for deletion.

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?

While the input schema describes 'price_rule_id' with 100% coverage, the description mentions 'by DiscountCodeNode ID', creating confusion about which ID type is expected. The description adds no value and introduces ambiguity, lowering the score.

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 states 'Delete a code discount by DiscountCodeNode ID', which is a specific action. However, the tool name and parameter 'price_rule_id' suggest a price rule, creating slight confusion between legacy and modern naming. It distinguishes itself as a compatibility wrapper among sibling delete tools.

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 only mentions usability for compatibility via 'Preserves the legacy price-rule tool name for compatibility.' It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_code_discount, nor provides any when-not-to-use guidance.

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