delete_iap

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent, and open-world, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the operation fails on submitted IAPs, which is not derivable from the schema or annotations. It omits whether deletion is permanent or what the response looks like, keeping it below 5.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately qualified by the precondition. Every clause earns its place with 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?

A destructive single-param tool with no output schema; annotations cover the safety profile and the description covers the eligibility constraint. What remains unstated (irreversibility, error behavior on ineligible IAPs) is minor enough not to undercut correct invocation.

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?

There is a single parameter (iapId) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no format or sourcing detail for the ID, which is acceptable at the baseline for a one-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (delete an in-app purchase) and narrows scope to draft IAPs, which cleanly separates it from siblings like update_iap, submit_iap_for_review, and get_iap.

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 parenthetical gives an explicit when-not condition (only works if not yet submitted for review), which is the key gating rule for deletion. It does not name an alternative for already-submitted IAPs, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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