MCP Hub

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the dual behavioral paths (permanent vs trash) and restoration capability, but omits critical safety details like whether permanent deletion is irreversible, what happens to product variations/images, or required authentication level.

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 sentences with action front-loaded. The '[UNIFIED]' metadata tag is slightly noisy but doesn't significantly impede readability. No redundant phrases or tautologies—every word contributes to understanding the operation scope.

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 destructive operation with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks return value documentation, error scenarios, prerequisite permissions, and detailed parameter semantics necessary for safe 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?

Schema has 0% description coverage with no parameter documentation. Description only implicitly hints at the 'force' parameter's purpose through 'permanently delete' mention, but fails to explain 'site' (URL? slug? ID?), 'product_id' format, or parameter relationships. Inadequate compensation for missing schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'Delete or trash a WooCommerce product' with specific verbs (delete/trash) and resource (WooCommerce product). The '[UNIFIED]' prefix doesn't obscure the purpose, and it effectively distinguishes from siblings like woocommerce_create_product or woocommerce_update_product.

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?

Implies two usage modes (permanent delete vs trash) with 'for later restoration' hinting at when to use trash, but lacks explicit guidance on choosing between modes or prerequisites like permissions. No comparison to other deletion tools in the ecosystem.

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