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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: the product survives in ApparelHub, only the channel listing is removed, and omitting the integration parameter cascades to fulfillment and every other channel. That is exactly the kind of failure-mode disclosure annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the scoping constraint, then the warning, then the alternative — a sensible priority order with little filler. The trailing '[#bd6407]' token is a stray artifact that adds no value and slightly mars an otherwise tight description.

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, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers side effects, scope, the raw-endpoint pitfall and the correct alternative. It does not mention auth/permission requirements or what a successful call returns, but the critical invocation risks are addressed.

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 only 25%, so the description needs to compensate. It does explain integration_uuid's role and the consequence of getting parameters wrong, which adds real meaning. However, store_uuid, product_uuid and workspace are left entirely to the schema, so the low coverage is only partly offset.

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 with explicit scope: 'Remove a product from ONE sales channel, leaving every other channel and the fulfillment provider untouched.' It also clarifies the blast radius ('the product stays in ApparelHub') and names the sibling for the broader operation (archive_product), so an agent can distinguish it from sync_to_channel and archive_product without opening a 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?

Explicit when-to-use ('delist from a single channel'), explicit when-not-to-use ('do NOT hand-roll it against the raw unsync endpoint'), and names the correct alternative for removing from everything ('use archive_product instead'). The reasoning for avoiding the raw endpoint is given, not just the prohibition.

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