delete_product_review

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations. While destructiveHint=true indicates destructive potential, the description clarifies that the default action is non-destructive (trash) and that permanent deletion requires an explicit flag. This effectively communicates the risk profile and false-positive safety, enhancing trust.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose ('Delete a product review') and then states the key behavior regarding trash and force. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundant or filler content.

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 simple nature of a delete tool and the presence of destructiveHint annotation, the description is largely complete. It explains the core behavior of trash vs. permanent delete, which is the main contextual nuance. However, it does not mention the return value or any side effects beyond deletion, and the 'fields' parameter's effect on the response is not noted, which is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described in the schema. The description essentially restates the meaning of the 'force' parameter already given in the schema ('True to permanently delete, false to move to trash'), adding no new information. The 'id' and 'fields' parameters are adequately described in the schema and not elaborated in the description, so no added value.

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's purpose: 'Delete a product review.' The verb 'Delete' and resource 'product review' are specific and unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling delete tools by scoping to product reviews and explaining the trash vs. permanent delete behavior, which differentiates it from other delete_* tools.

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 how to use the tool: by default it moves to trash, and setting force=true permanently deletes. This informs whether to use this tool based on desired outcome. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it, which is acceptable given the tool's clear purpose.

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