Supprimer un(e) produit

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it warns that the action is irreversible and notes that a confirmation may be requested if the MCP client supports elicitation. This complements the destructiveHint annotation by clarifying the permanence and interaction flow.

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 concise and front-loaded with the action and the critical warning. The Args block is somewhat redundant given the detailed schema, but it doesn't significantly bloat the text. Overall, it's efficient and well-structured.

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 single-parameter delete tool, the description covers the key aspects: the action, irreversibility, confirmation behavior, and the parameter. Since an output schema exists, return values are not required in the description. It lacks mention of permission requirements or error cases, but these are not critical for such a straightforward operation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description's Args section repeats the parameter name and a brief label but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., numeric pattern).

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 tool's function: 'Supprime un(e) produit de BoondManager' (deletes a product from BoondManager). This specifies the verb (delete), the resource (product), and the system, effectively distinguishing it from sibling delete tools targeting other entities.

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 implies usage—use when you need to delete a product—but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as boond_products_update or boond_products_get. It also doesn't mention prerequisites like the product needing to exist or required permissions.

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