delete_productDeletes a product by its ID and returns whether the deletion succeeded, enabling product removal from an e-commerce catalog.
Delete a product by id. Returns { deleted: boolean }.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deleted | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the delete action and the return value, but it does not mention irreversibility, idempotency, behavior for non-existent ids, or permission requirements, which is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
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 short sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded and the return type is given directly, making it concise and efficient.
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?
This is a simple single-parameter destructive call with an output schema, but the description omits behavior for non-existent ids (e.g., false vs error), permanence, and side effects. For an agent to confidently invoke it on real data, this is only partially complete.
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%, so the description must compensate. Saying 'by id' clarifies that the sole parameter 'id' refers to the product identifier, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. This fully covers the parameter's role, though it doesn't discuss id sourcing.
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 ('Delete') and a resource ('product by id'), making the operation unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like add_product and get_product_by_id, and the return value is also explicit.
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 implies usage for deleting a product, but provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. With siblings like get_product_by_id, an agent must infer that delete is intended for removal, which is straightforward but not directly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.