tiendanube_custom_objects_deleteDelete a custom object definition by namespace and slug to remove an unused schema from the Tiendanube store.
Delete a custom object definition (unstable API). HTTP: DELETE /custom-objects/{namespace}/{slug} Required scope: read_products/write_products API version: unstable
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Custom object slug | |
| namespace | Yes | Custom object namespace |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the API is unstable (a real risk signal for production use) and the required OAuth scope. It still doesn't say whether deletion cascades to existing custom object entries or is irreversible.
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?
Four short lines, front-loaded with the action, then the endpoint, scope, and API version. Nothing is wasted or repeated.
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 endpoint, scope and stability but omits cascade behavior, permanence, and error cases. Annotations partially compensate for the destructive framing, leaving a moderate gap.
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% and both parameters carry descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only reinforces parameter placement via the route template /custom-objects/{namespace}/{slug}; it adds no format or constraint detail beyond that.
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 — 'Delete a custom object definition' — plus the exact HTTP route, which pins down the operation. The word 'definition' implicitly separates it from the sibling tiendanube_custom_object_entries_delete, though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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 guidance on when to delete a definition versus updating it or deleting individual entries instead. No prerequisites or warnings that removing a definition affects the schema that entries depend on.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.