Remove the product's icon/logo.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"product_id": "<product_id>"
},
"name": "remove_product_icon"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't say whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if no icon exists, whether it requires ownership/permissions, or whether it is reversible.
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?
A single short sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, with no filler. It is efficient but too terse to be genuinely informative, so it doesn't reach a 5.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description should at least state effect and side effects. It states only the bare action, leaving key invocation context missing.
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 0% and the single product_id parameter is an undocumented string. The description mentions 'product's' but adds no format, identifier-type, or constraint detail, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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?
Clear specific verb (Remove) and resource (product's icon/logo), and it is conceptually distinct from the sibling upload_product_icon. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with that sibling, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.
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?
No guidance on when to call this versus update_product (which may also clear an icon) or upload_product_icon. No prerequisites, no mention of what state the product must be in. Only the implied 'you have an icon to remove' context exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.