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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond that: operations are reassigned to the default product rather than orphaned, and a confirmToken is required. It stops short of stating permissions or irreversibility of the deletion itself.

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 tight clauses with zero waste, front-loading the destructive action and its consequence before the prerequisite. Every phrase earns its place.

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 destructive three-param tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety hints, the description covers the critical side effect and the confirmation requirement. It omits permissions and what a rejected confirmation returns, but nothing essential to a correct call is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including the confirmToken's origin. The description reinforces that a confirmToken is needed but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Deletes a product") and adds the important side effect that its operations move to the default product. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like update_product, create_product, and list_products, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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?

Mentions the confirmToken prerequisite, which hints at a confirmation workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not conditions, and no reference to alternatives. An agent must infer that this is the destructive counterpart to update_product.

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