Removes a product from the NovaCRM catalog, archiving it by default for reversible removal or permanently deleting it when permanent is set to true.
Remove um produto do catálogo. Por padrão arquiva (reversível); com permanent=true exclui definitivamente (exige escopo dangerous:delete).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID do produto | |
| permanent | No | Excluir definitivamente em vez de arquivar (padrão false) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the default path is reversible, that permanent=true is irreversible, and that the hard-delete path requires the 'dangerous:delete' scope. It omits whether confirmation is needed and what happens to dependent records (orders, stock history).
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 short sentences, zero padding, and the safety-critical distinction (reversible by default vs irreversible with a privileged scope) is front-loaded in the second clause.
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 2-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: default behavior, irreversibility, and permission requirement. A line about the response (e.g. whether the deleted/archived product is returned) would close the remaining gap.
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 both parameters (id, permanent) are already documented including the default. The description reinforces the permanent flag's meaning but adds no new parameter-level detail such as ID format or behavior when id is unknown — 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Remove a product from the catalog'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from novacrm_create_product / novacrm_update_product. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative (e.g. archiving via update_product), so it stops just short of the top mark.
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?
Explains the two operating modes and which parameter selects each: default = archive (reversible), permanent=true = definitive deletion. This is exactly the decision the agent needs. It does not say when archiving is preferable to updating the product or what to do if the product is referenced by orders.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.