[EN] Retire (discontinue) a product you created (needs Bearer API key; soft, not hard delete). / 自分が登録した製品を取り下げる (生産終了化。ハード削除はしない)。Authorization: Bearer <APIキー> 必須。他者/公式 SKU は不可。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sku | Yes | 取り下げる SKU (必須) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation is a soft delete (non-destructive), requires authentication, and is limited to own products. This provides sufficient behavioral context for an agent.
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, efficient sentence covering action, auth requirement, scope, and deletion type. No wasted words, and it is front-loaded with key 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?
Given no output schema, the description lacks information about the expected return value or confirmation of success. It explains what happens (soft delete) but not what the agent receives in response, which is a minor gap for a simple action tool.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents that 'sku' is required. The description adds meaningful context: the sku must belong to a product the user created, which goes beyond the schema's simple 'SKU to retract' explanation.
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 verb 'retire' and resource 'product', and specifies that it is a soft delete (discontinue) operation. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_zoning_rule' by focusing on product discontinuation, and from 'update_product' by emphasizing retirement.
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 clear context: requires Bearer API key, only for self-created products, not for official SKUs or others' products. It implies when to use (soft delete) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use.
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 distinct purposes, but some potential overlap exists (e.g., get_site_context and get_houki_rules both provide site conditions, and set_site_context vs. upsert_zoning_rule could be confused). Overall, descriptions help disambiguate.
Tools predominantly use a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_house, update_house, set_visibility). A few outliers like houki_check and whoami break the pattern, but naming is mostly consistent.
29 tools is heavy but covers a broad domain (house design, construction, catalog, contractors, admin). Some tools are niche (e.g., list_incomplete_addresses, set_forkable), but each serves a clear purpose. Could be streamlined.
Core operations for house lifecycle (create, read, update, check) are present. Lacks explicit delete/archive for houses (only set_visibility), and no tool to update site context directly (only set via set_site_context). Minor gaps but domain is well-covered.