delete_inventory_product

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent hints. The description adds critical behavioral info: refusal conditions for products with variants, photos, attachments, or comments, and the fact that deletion does not cascade. This goes well beyond the annotations to inform the agent of failure modes.

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 sentences, efficiently conveying the action, identifier methods, constraints, and non-cascading nature. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary words.

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 deletion tool, the description covers identifier, refusal conditions, and cascade behavior. An output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. The category parameter is not explained, but overall the description provides sufficient context for an agent to correctly invoke the tool and understand when it will fail.

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%, but the descriptions are weak ('a string that will be trimmed' for both). The tool description clarifies that 'product' can be an ID or exact name, adding meaning. However, the 'category' parameter remains unexplained; its purpose and usage are not covered by the description, so it adds only partial value.

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 action (delete) and the resource (inventory product), with specific identifier methods (ID or exact name). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by noting refusal of products with variants, photos, attachments, or comments, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to delete a product) and when it will fail (if product has associated entities). It notes the non-cascading behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., delete_inventory_variant) for removing those entities first, which would enhance guidance.

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