delete_iap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It adds the prerequisite that the IAP must be a draft and not submitted for review, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose other potentially important behaviors such as whether deletion is permanent or what happens if the IAP already has localizations or other related 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key condition. There is no wasted wording or 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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema) and the description provides the core usage context: what it deletes and the prerequisite. It does not explicitly state success/failure behavior, but that is largely implied for a deletion operation. Given the low complexity, the description is adequately complete, though a note on irreversibility would make it fully complete.

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 fully describes the single parameter 'iapId' as 'The in-app purchase ID', giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantic information about the parameter, so it does not improve upon the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Delete' and the resource 'draft in-app purchase', and adds a critical constraint ('only works if not yet submitted for review') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_iap or submit_iap_for_review. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 an explicit condition for when the tool is applicable ('only works if not yet submitted for review'), which effectively tells the agent when to use it and when not to. This serves as a clear usage guideline even though it does not name alternative tools.

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