beel_delete_product

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutating nature is known. The description adds only the endpoint string, which is not behavioral. It does not disclose idempotency (already hinted) or any side effects, permissions, or error behavior that annotations don't cover. Given the annotations, the bar is lower, but the description still contributes little beyond repeating 'deletes'.

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 with zero filler. The action 'Deletes a product' is front-loaded, followed by the endpoint for reference. Everything present is useful and there is no redundancy with annotations or schema.

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 simple delete tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly: what it deletes and on which company. It does not mention error handling or response format, but annotations cover idempotency and safety, keeping the description adequate without being exhaustive.

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?

Both parameters (company_id and product_id) are fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, including specific details about company_id semantics and product_id format. The description itself adds no parameter information, so it does not exceed the schema baseline.

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 the verb 'deletes' and the resource 'a product from the catalog of this company (NIF)', which is specific and distinct from bulk deletion. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like beel_delete_products_bulk, but the singular 'a product' implies a single-item operation, making it distinguishable at the surface level.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The description implies it is for deleting one product from a company, but it does not contrast with bulk delete or other delete tools. An agent would need to infer the appropriate use case from the singular noun and endpoint.

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