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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the crucial two-phase contract: without confirm nothing is deleted and the response enumerates targets under requiresConfirmation. It also discloses blast-radius limits (store products untouched, catalogs keep their own tile copies), which is exactly the context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Three sentences, each load-bearing: scope, side-effect boundary, then the confirmation protocol. The safety-critical constraint is front-loaded in sentence three before any invocation risk.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be fully described, yet the description still explains the one response branch that governs agent behavior (the requiresConfirmation preview). For a two-parameter destructive tool, nothing an agent needs to call it safely is 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description earns above baseline by explaining confirm as the approval gate tied to the requiresConfirmation list rather than just a boolean flag. productIds semantics beyond 'ids as search_products reports them, or skus' are left to the schema.

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 (remove) and a precisely scoped resource (products held in Foldsquare), and immediately bounds it against what is not affected: store products and catalog copies of tiles. An agent can distinguish this from delete_catalog or update_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?

Gives a clear operational rule: it only proceeds on a call with confirm: true, and without it the answer is a would-delete preview for merchant approval. It does not name sibling alternatives (e.g. delete_catalog) for contrast, so it stops short of explicit when-to-use vs which-tool guidance.

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