netlicensing_delete_product

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'permanently' to indicate irreversibility and explains the force_cascade parameter's effect on dependencies. However, it lacks details on authorization needs or what happens if force_cascade is false and dependencies exist (likely failure).

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 two lines, highly concise with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Delete a product permanently') and then lists parameters. This is appropriate for a straightforward delete operation.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 params, simple delete) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it fails to mention error conditions (e.g., deletion failure due to dependencies without cascade) or prerequisites (product must exist). Slightly incomplete for a confident agent invocation.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains product_number as 'Product to delete' (minimal but clear) and force_cascade as 'Also delete all dependent modules, templates, licensees, and licenses' (good semantic value). However, it does not specify the format of product_number (e.g., ID pattern).

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 clearly states 'Delete a product permanently', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes the tool from other delete actions like netlicensing_delete_bundle or netlicensing_delete_license. However, it could be more explicit about the scope of deletion (e.g., only the product metadata vs. all linked entities).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., netlicensing_update_product to deactivate). It also does not explain when to set force_cascade to true versus false, or mention prerequisites such as the product existing.

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