Remove a product from YOUR wishlist on this merchant. Idempotent: removing something not on your list succeeds with removed:false. Scoped to your own agent identity. REQUIRES IDENTITY: Facet KYA as Authorization: Bearer <kya>.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product_id | Yes | The product id to remove. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses idempotency, the response behavior for absent items (removed:false), scope to the agent's own wishlist, and a hard requirement for identity via KYA token. Missing explicit statement about permanence of removal, but the verb 'remove' implies it. Good coverage for a simple tool.
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?
Three short, information-dense sentences. Each sentence earns its place: action+scope, idempotency behavior, identity requirement. No fluff or repetition.
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 no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, scope, special behavior (idempotent, removed:false), and auth requirement. It's complete and self-contained.
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 describes product_id as 'The product id to remove.' with 100% coverage. The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning beyond restating the purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema handles it fully.
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: 'Remove a product from YOUR wishlist on this merchant.' It uses a specific verb (remove) and resource (product from wishlist), and distinguishes itself from siblings like wishlist_add and wishlist_list by focusing on removal and scope.
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 context by noting it's scoped to 'YOUR wishlist' and 'your own agent identity,' which implies it's for removing items the agent added. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the idempotency note ('removing something not on your list succeeds') clarifies behavior in edge cases. Slight gap: no explicit 'use when...' but the action is unambiguous.
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 map to a distinct lifecycle step, and the detailed descriptions separate discovery, cart, checkout, payment, order, and wishlist concerns well. However, get_product and lookup_catalog are largely the same lookup by identifier, discover_products and search_catalog overlap across scope, and update_checkout is actually a read-only no-op.
The set overwhelmingly follows a verb_noun pattern: create_cart, get_checkout, cancel_checkout, complete_checkout, search_catalog. Minor deviations are the wishlist_* resource-first subgroup and the misleading update_checkout, which does not perform an update.
At 23 tools, this sits at the heavy end of the range, though the broad commerce lifecycle does justify substantial surface area. The count is inflated by redundant product lookup tools and a no-op update_checkout, so a more trimmed set in the low-to-mid teens would be healthier.
The server covers the full shopper lifecycle well: discovery, product lookup, cart, checkout, payment, order placement, order read, refunds, and wishlist. Gaps are minor and workable, such as update_checkout not actually supporting updates and no explicit order-cancellation path once a checkout is complete.
