Delete a product. Money is integer minor units (cents). Calling this changes nothing: it returns a preview of what would change and a confirmation link. Only the merchant, on that page, can make it happen.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product | Yes | The product, by handle or by (enough of) its title. To take it off sale but keep it, use products.set_status or products.edit instead. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds rich behavioral context (preview-only, returns a confirmation link, only the merchant can complete it), but it directly conflicts with the annotations: 'Calling this changes nothing' contradicts readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, which tell the agent a mutation occurs. This is an annotation contradiction.
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 purpose is front-loaded and the flow explanation is efficient, but the middle sentence about money in integer minor units is orphaned boilerplate that does not belong to a single-parameter delete tool and dilutes focus.
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 one-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the crucial nuance that the call is a non-executing preview requiring merchant confirmation. It is nearly complete, lacking only explicit sibling-routing, which the schema compensates for.
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% and the single parameter 'product' is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The one description sentence touching parameters ('Money is integer minor units') is irrelevant to this tool, which has no monetary parameter, so it adds no meaningful semantics.
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 a specific verb and resource ('Delete a product') and immediately clarifies the two-phase nature of the action. It is clear what the tool is, though differentiation from siblings (products.set_status, products.edit) lives in the schema's parameter text rather than the description itself.
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 explains the confirmation mechanism but never says when to choose this tool over alternatives. The sibling-routing guidance ('to take it off sale but keep it, use products.set_status or products.edit') appears only in the input schema, not the description.
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.
