remove_product_from_collection

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: the blast radius is limited to the collection membership (product survives), and removal propagates to any synced sales channel. That second point is a side effect not derivable from annotations or schema.

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?

Two tight sentences with the primary action first and the two caveats ordered by importance (non-deletion, then channel propagation). The trailing '[#c2fc5a]' fragment is a meaningless artifact that wastes tokens and should be removed.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and undocumented parameters, the description covers the crucial consequences (membership-only removal, channel propagation) but omits permissions, whether the change is reversible via add_products_to_collection, and any confirmation of success. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

Four parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no enums, and the description says nothing about any of them — not the required store_uuid/collection_uuid/product_uuid triple, nor the optional 'workspace' selector. With coverage this low the description is expected to compensate and does not.

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?

Specific verb+resource with scope qualifiers ('a single product'), and it explicitly bounds the operation by noting the product itself is not deleted. This makes it distinguishable from delete_product/archive_product without opening their schemas, though it doesn't name a sibling tool directly.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the scope clarification ('single product'), and the parenthetical steers the agent away from conflating this with product deletion. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the bulk alternative (add_products_to_collection / update_collection), and no stated prerequisites such as permissions needed on the collection.

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