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

The description adds critical nuance beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by disclosing that deletion becomes a soft-archive when sale records exist, which qualifies the tool's destructive nature. It also includes a '[demo: deshabilitada]' note indicating the tool may be disabled in demo environments, which is valuable context not present in the annotations.

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 a single concise sentence with a clarifying parenthetical and a brief demo label. It is front-loaded with the primary action and keeps the conditional clause compact. However, the foreign-language '[demo: deshabilitada]' prefix might be cryptic, slightly reducing clarity.

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 delete operation with one parameter and existing safety annotations, the description adequately covers the resource, the conditional soft-archive behavior, and an environment limitation. It does not mention return values or error handling, but given the simplicity and no output schema, the coverage is sufficient.

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 sole parameter productId is fully documented in the input schema with a clear description ('ID of the product to delete.'). With 100% schema description coverage, the tool description correctly relies on the schema and doesn't add further parameter-level detail, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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 states the action 'Deletes' or 'soft-archives' the specific resource 'a product from the catalog', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_product, edit_product, delete_customer, and delete_supplier. The conditional soft-archive behavior adds precision about the tool's scope.

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 explicit alternative tools are mentioned, but the context makes it clear this is the product deletion tool, distinct from edit_product for modifying product data. The conditional behavior ('when it has sale records') provides guidance on how the tool handles products with sales history, though it doesn't formally state when to choose delete over other operations.

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