delete_products

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it explains the default (record-only removal, listings untouched), the destructive opt-in (also_delist ends live listings, irreversible), recoverability (Recently Deleted, 60-day restore), and the auth/plan prerequisite (Pro plan, 403 'plan limit' on read-only tokens). This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Front-loads the action, then the default behavior, then the destructive opt-in, then recovery and prerequisites. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

A destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description covers default vs opt-in behavior, irreversibility, recovery window, and plan gating. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the default false and the irreversibility of also_delist. The description reinforces but does not extend that meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Delete FLUF products') and immediately scopes it. No sibling tool performs deletion, so there is no ambiguity to resolve; the agent knows exactly what this does from the first sentence.

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?

Gives clear usage context ('Suited to sold-out or obsolete inventory') and a mandatory workflow step ('Always confirm with the user first and list which products will be deleted'). No sibling alternative exists to route to, so no exclusions are needed, but the when-to-use guidance is concrete and actionable.

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