Delete a private product

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses non-obvious behavior: the ownership check runs before mutation, previously logged entries retain the name and values, deletion is a soft delete (product stays marked deleted and drops out of foods/searches), re-deletion returns already_deleted=true, and the response carries a 'previous' payload that can recreate the item. This corroborates idempotentHint/destructiveHint and adds real detail the annotations cannot express.

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?

It is dense but front-loaded: the action and scope come first, followed by refusal behavior, soft-delete semantics, idempotency, and the recreation payload. Every sentence carries information, though the run-on clause about the parenthetical ownership check ('that check reads it') is slightly awkward.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: valid ID sources, ownership refusal, soft-delete semantics, idempotent re-call behavior, and the meaning of the returned 'previous' field. Nothing material 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 coverage is 100%, so food_id's description already documents its origin. The prose reiterates the same two sources without adding format, range, or failure-mode detail beyond what the schema states, 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource (delete one of the user's own products) and scopes it precisely to the user's private foods, excluding catalog items and other users' products. It also grounds the food_id's provenance in two sibling tools (create_food, get_my_foods), so an agent can distinguish it from delete_recipe or update_food without inference.

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?

It gives clear context and an explicit exclusion: only the user's own products may be deleted, and any catalog or other-user product is refused before any change. It also tells the agent where to get valid IDs. It stops short of routing to named alternatives (e.g. what to call instead for a recipe), so it is strong but not a full when/when-not/alternative statement.

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