delete_product

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds key non-obvious details: the default trash behavior, the force option for permanent deletion, and the fact that associated media is not deleted. This substantially enhances the agent's understanding of the tool's effects.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence provides necessary information. There is no unnecessary fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers essential behavior: deletion, trash vs. permanent, and the media caveat. It could mention the 'fields' parameter effect on response, but the schema already documents that, so completeness is high.

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 descriptions cover all three parameters (id, force, fields) at 100%. The description reinforces the force parameter's meaning by explaining the trash default and permanent deletion, adding value beyond the schema by clarifying the tool's operational semantics.

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 tool deletes a product and distinguishes it from sibling delete tools by specifying the resource (product) and the trash/permanent behavior. This is more specific than simply saying 'delete product'.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: to delete a product. It explains the default behavior (trash) and how to permanently delete with force=true. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but this is not critical for a delete operation.

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