products_delete_product_by_id

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which the description aligns with by saying 'delete'. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as irreversibility, side effects on related data (e.g., inventory, reviews), or permission requirements. Since the bar is lower with annotations, this adds nothing beyond what is already known.

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 extremely concise ('Delete Product by ID') and front-loaded without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple delete tool, though it sacrifices nuance. It earns a 4 for being tight and clear.

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 delete tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks context about potential side effects (e.g., deletion of associated prices, reviews, or inventory) or confirmation of what happens after deletion. The openWorldHint=true suggests unknown effects, but the description does not elaborate. It is adequate but not complete.

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 all three parameters are individually documented. The description itself does not clarify parameter usage beyond the schema; it merely states the operation. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description adds no meaningful parameter information.

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 'Delete Product by ID' clearly identifies the verb (delete), the resource (Product), and the identifier (by ID). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like products_get_product_by_id and products_update_product_by_id, making the purpose unambiguous without needing to inspect the schema.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention, for example, that this is for a specific product (not a collection or review) or any context about when deletion is appropriate. The description simply restates the action with no usage conditions.

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