Metafields Delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the required OAuth scope tied to owner_resource, and that metafields span products/variants/categories, pages, orders and customers. It still doesn't say what a successful delete returns or what happens when the ID doesn't exist, and the 'read_*/write_*' scope wording is odd for a delete operation.

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 with the action front-loaded first, then endpoint, scope and API version as supporting metadata. No filler sentences; each line carries a distinct fact.

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 one-parameter destructive call with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the definition is close to sufficient: endpoint, scope and API version are all present. The only meaningful gap is post-delete behavior (response shape, error on missing ID), which is minor given the strong annotation set.

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% for the single parameter, so 'Metafield ID' is already documented structurally. The description adds nothing about the ID's form (numeric vs string, global vs store-scoped), so it neither compensates nor harms — the schema baseline of 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 ('Delete a metafield') and pins it down further with the HTTP verb and path (DELETE /metafields/{id}). Among the metafields_* siblings (list_by_resource, get, create, update) the tool's role is unambiguous, though the description doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb — an agent infers it should call this to remove an existing metafield. There is no explicit 'when to use this vs tiendanube_metafields_update' guidance, nor any note about prerequisites such as needing the metafield ID from metafields_list_by_resource or metafields_get first.

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