Delete a product input

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds crucial behavioral details: the operation is async (processed product disappears after minutes) and returns an empty object on success. This helps the agent set expectations and handle the response appropriately.

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, then adding necessary context about source specificity and async behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool is simple, with all parameters documented in the schema and the description providing the key behavioral caveats (async processing, empty return). The absence of an output schema is compensated by explicitly stating the return value. Annotations cover safety, making this complete for an agent.

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 documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, including formats and the data_source requirement. The description adds little beyond emphasizing data_source is required and explaining the multi-source nuance, which is helpful but not essential since the schema already marks it as required.

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 'Deletes' and the resource 'a product input from a specific data source'. It distinguishes from siblings like insert_product_input and update_product_input by emphasizing the targeted removal from a specific source, which is a unique 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 clear context on when to use this tool: when deleting a specific product input from a specific data source, with the nuance that the same product can exist in multiple sources. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the purpose is clear enough for selection.

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