Remove a product from this API key's inventory by id. Requires an API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | inventory product id from list_inventory |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| removed | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the operation as destructive and not read-only, and the description's 'Remove' aligns with that. Beyond annotations, it adds useful context about API-key ownership scoping and that an API key is required, which helps an agent understand authorization and scope. It does not describe idempotent behavior, but the idempotentHint annotation already covers that.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the API-key requirement follows naturally. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.
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?
This is a low-complexity tool with one fully documented parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile. The description adds the important missing pieces: API-key authentication and the inventory scope. It could have explicitly stated that removal is permanent, but the destructiveHint annotation already signals this, so the description is complete enough.
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 100%: the id parameter is already described as an 'inventory product id from list_inventory'. The description only repeats 'by id' and adds no substantive parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses the specific action verb 'Remove', names the exact resource ('a product from this API key's inventory'), and specifies the selection mechanism ('by id'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like add_inventory_product and remove_watch_pattern.
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 communicates the core context: it is used to remove products from the current API key's inventory, and it sets the prerequisite that an API key is required. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as add_inventory_product or explain when not to use it, leaving the routing mostly implicit.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct roles, and the descriptions explicitly separate product lookup from recall search. However, the multiple recall search entry points (by query, UPC, image, and identifier) overlap enough that an agent could pick the wrong one without carefully reading the details.
Tool names consistently follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern such as add_, list_, remove_, search_, get_, create_, revoke_, and mark_. The single-word signup is the only minor deviation, but it does not undermine the overall naming system.
At 19 tools, the set is in the borderline-heavy range. The count is justified by the multiple subdomains like API key management, inventory, watch patterns, notifications, and recall searching, but it still feels slightly above the ideal well-scoped tool surface.
Core recall search, product lookup, inventory tracking, watch pattern management, notifications, and API key lifecycle are all covered well. Minor gaps exist such as no way to update a watch pattern or view account usage limits, but agents can generally work around them.