Delete Product Variants

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real context beyond them: the deletion is permanent and irreversible, and it cascades to associated inventory items. The 'must keep at least one variant' business rule is behavior no annotation or schema encodes.

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 filler, and the most important fact (permanent, irreversible) is front-loaded in caps. The failure constraint follows immediately.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers irreversibility, cascading effect, and the minimum-variant rule. It leaves open only edge behavior on partial batch failure, which is a minor omission given annotations already carry the safety profile.

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 100%, so productId, variantIds, and the confirm guard are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no argument-level detail (e.g., ID format, batch size limits), so the 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 ('PERMANENTLY delete variants from a product') plus the cascade scope ('along with their inventory items'). This distinguishes it cleanly from shopify_delete_product and shopify_bulk_update_variants in the sibling list.

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?

Gives a clear precondition for failure — a product must retain at least one variant — which tells the agent when this call is invalid. It does not name alternative tools (e.g., bulk_update_variants for non-destructive edits), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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