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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the description's 'Deletes' is consistent. The description adds no further behavioral details such as cascading effects, confirmation, or irreversibility, but also does not contradict 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 repetitive, saying 'Deletes a specific product variant' twice in nearly identical form. The 'Guidance:' prefix and trailing parameter list add noise without substantive content, making the description less concise than it should be.

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 two identifier parameters, the description is adequate in isolation. However, it omits any context about required permissions, side effects, return values, or error conditions, which could be important for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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 schema already provides descriptions for both product_id and variant_id ('Product Unique ID.' and 'Variant Unique ID.'). The description's 'context: product_id, variant_id' adds no new meaning; it merely echoes the parameter names without explaining their roles or relationships.

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 ('Deletes') and the resource ('a specific product variant'), which is sufficient to identify the tool's purpose. However, it largely repeats the tool title and adds no distinguishing detail beyond the resource name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like shop_delete_product or shop_update_variant. The 'Guidance' portion merely restates the action and lists parameter names without explaining context or selection criteria.

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