Delete a product from the authenticated store (reversible cleanup — used by the agent's ephemeral live-demo). Requires Bearer token; only the owner's own product. WRITE/DESTRUCTIVE.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product_id | Yes | Product id to delete. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only nature. The description adds critical context: the operation is reversible for demo purposes, requires authentication, and is scoped to the owner's product. This goes beyond annotations to inform the agent of important behavioral traits.
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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose and context. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy or extraneous content.
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 simple destructive tool with one parameter, the description covers purpose, authentication, scope, and additional context (reversible demo). It lacks details about the return value or error states, but given the simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.
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?
The input schema covers the single parameter 'product_id' with a description. The tool description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, the description contributes no extra value for parameter understanding.
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 clearly states the action ('Delete a product'), the resource ('from the authenticated store'), and provides context ('reversible cleanup — used by the agent's ephemeral live-demo'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'create_product' or 'publish' that have different purposes.
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 description specifies requirements ('Requires Bearer token; only the owner's own product') and hints at the use case (ephemeral demo), but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives. The context strongly implies usage within the demo, making it clear enough.
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.
Each tool targets a specific function with clear boundaries. No two tools overlap in purpose.
Most tools follow verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_product, delete_product), but some are noun_noun (cod_profit, order_risk) and 'publish' is a bare verb, causing minor inconsistency.
12 tools cover product management, store creation, search, and analytics without being overwhelming. The count feels right for the domain.
Missing essential operations like listing products, reading product details, updating stores, or managing orders. Gaps hinder core workflows.
