delete_shipping_class

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds meaningful context by stating that products using the class will revert to no shipping class, which is a behavioral consequence not covered by annotations. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 at two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core function, the second explains an important side effect. No redundant or vague language.

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 has destructive behavior, a required id, a force parameter with a note, and a fields parameter for output. The description covers the main behavioral consequence, and the schema/annotations handle the rest. While it doesn't mention the return value or force requirement explicitly, those are documented in the schema, making the overall context sufficiently 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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, including the id, force, and fields parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters thoroughly.

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 explicitly states 'Delete a product shipping class' with a clear verb and resource, and the additional sentence about products reverting to no shipping class distinguishes this from other delete operations like delete_category or delete_tag. It is specific and actionable.

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 for when to use this tool (when you need to delete a shipping class) and describes the consequence on associated products. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the resource-specific wording makes the usage context obvious.

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