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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description reinforces those with 'Permanently delete' and 'This cannot be undone.' It adds a clear irreversibility warning that aligns with, and slightly extends, the structured annotation information.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action, then adds the permanence warning and the save_variant alternative. Every word earns its place with no 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 description covers the main delete semantics and the annotation profile handles safety, but the unresolved id/productid requiredness conflict is left unaddressed. Since there is no output schema, a brief hint about the expected result or confirmation would also improve completeness.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond saying 'by id.' The schema itself contains an odd 'Required in practice' note for id while productid is the only required property; the description does not resolve this ambiguity.

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 the specific verb 'delete', the resource 'product variant', and the identifier ('by id'), and adds 'Permanently' to set expectations. It is clearly distinct from save_variant and other delete_* siblings.

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?

It explicitly directs the agent to use save_variant instead when the goal is to create or edit a variant, while framing this tool as the permanent deletion path. This provides an actionable routing rule and a caution about irreversible consequences.

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