delete_store

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at document deletion but does not state that deleting a store is destructive and likely irreversible, that deletion may be refused when documents remain without force, or what actually happens to documents when force is true. The schema's force description provides some clarity, but the tool description itself leaves critical behavior implicit.

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 with no filler or redundant phrasing. It communicates the core action and an important optional behavior efficiently, and the key resource is front-loaded.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits failure semantics, the default refusal when documents remain, irreversibility, and any prerequisites such as the store needing to exist. The basic call shape is present, but an agent is left without enough behavioral context to safely invoke this tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that deleting the store can also delete its documents, which maps to the force parameter's meaning. This goes slightly beyond what the schema alone states, so a 4 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a store.' The additional phrase 'and optionally all its documents' adds scope and clearly distinguishes this from the sibling delete_document tool. An agent can determine what resource this operates on without opening the schema.

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?

Usage context is implied by the tool name and resource: use this to delete a store, while delete_document exists for individual documents. However, there is no explicit guidance about when force should be used, when deletion will fail, or when to prefer this over other siblings. The guidance is functional but not explicit.

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