delete_brand

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it explicitly states that products are not deleted, only unassociated. This disclosure goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it, providing important safety-relevant information.

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, with two short sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately add the key nuance. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's simple delete operation, the description is sufficiently complete: it states the primary action and the important side effect (products not deleted), while the schema covers parameter semantics. It could optionally mention the force parameter's soft-delete implication, but that is already handled by the schema.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (id, force, fields), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already explains, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('product brand'), and clearly distinguishes itself from other deletion tools by noting that products are not deleted, simply losing the brand association. This provides clear scope and prevents confusion with delete_product or delete_category.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you want to delete a brand but keep its products) by stating that products only lose the association, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions. It gives clear context but no direct comparison to sibling tools.

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