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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds the important behavioral detail that deletion 'Cannot be undone' and specifies the full scope of what may be destroyed. It does not cover permissions or confirm requirements, but those are handled by the schema and 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource scope, followed by the irreversibility warning. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 multi-action destructive tool with rich schema and annotations, the description is sufficiently complete: it names all affected resource types and warns that deletion is permanent. The action enum details and confirm requirements are fully covered by the schema, though the description could have briefly mentioned that an action parameter selects the specific operation.

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 detailed oneOf action parameter and other fields already document parameter semantics thoroughly. The description itself adds no parameter-specific detail beyond listing affected resources, making the baseline 3 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?

The description states a specific verb, 'Deletes,' and enumerates the exact resources affected: products, images, stock records, basket items, comments, and wishlist. This clearly distinguishes it from shop_read and shop_write siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the destructive operation and the warning 'Cannot be undone,' but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over shop_write or other deletion tools, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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