Merchant.Product.Delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely doesn't meet it. The word 'guarded' hints at a safety gate but never explains that it refers to the `confirm` parameter, nor does it state irreversibility, required scopes, or error behavior for missing products.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient, though part of that efficiency comes from omitting information that a destructive tool should provide.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. However, for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage and zero schema coverage on a safety-critical `confirm` parameter, the description leaves too much for the agent to guess.

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 description coverage is 0% across two parameters. The description maps 'by resource name' to product_name, but the `confirm` parameter (anyOf string/null, default null) is completely unexplained — an agent cannot tell what value to pass or that omitting it likely blocks the deletion.

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?

States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (a product) and the addressing key (resource name), which an agent can distinguish from merchant.product.get/update/insert. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with siblings, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus merchant.product.update or list, nor any prerequisite conditions (e.g. ownership requirements, whether the product must be unpublished first). Usage is only implied by the verb.

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