store_delete

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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it explains the soft-delete semantics (retained for audit/recovery), the return value contract (deleted: true|false), and the scoping constraint (store_scope). This is exactly what an agent needs to understand side effects.

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 concise, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value. It covers the purpose, behavior, return value, and a constraint without redundancy.

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 mudand the annotations indicating destructiveHint, the description is nearly complete. It lacks explicit mention of error cases (e.g., permission errors) or concurrency, but for a straightforward delete operation, it is adequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It correctly references the record_id parameter and the store_scope, but does not elaborate on app_id or collection. However, the parameter names are self-explanatory, and the description provides enough context for the agent to use the tool correctly.

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 soft-deletes one record by ID, distinguishing it from hard deletion and from purge operations. It also mentions the effect on get/list/search, which is specific and actionable.

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 explicitly notes that hard removal is deliberately outside the tool surface, clarifying when NOT to use this tool. It also implies that for permanent deletion, operators should handle it, providing clear usage boundaries.

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