Delete product (dangerous)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the critical dangerous-operation gate and confirmation requirement. It stops short of stating irreversibility, whether related customer-product links cascade, or what the response/error looks like when the flag is missing.

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 terse sentences with the destructive gate front-loaded after the endpoint identity; no filler and no repetition of the title.

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 dangerous mutation with zero annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the definition covers the invocation gate and parameter identity but leaves out blast radius, reversibility, and auth expectations. It is minimally sufficient to call safely but not 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, and it addresses all three parameters: item_number and language_code are shown as identity path segments, and confirm is stated to require true rather than the schema's misleading default of false. It adds no format constraints, but the semantics it supplies are the ones an agent actually needs.

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 the HTTP verb and path, which confirms the resource being deleted, but it largely restates the name 'delete_product' rather than describing what deletion means for a product. It offers no differentiation from siblings such as delete_customer_product or upsert_product, so an agent must infer the distinction from names alone.

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?

It provides a concrete precondition for invocation (AIOTIC_MCP_ALLOW_DANGEROUS=true and confirm:true), which is actionable. However, it gives no when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives like upsert_product or delete_customer_product, and no statement of what happens if the gate is not satisfied.

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