Price Tables Customers Remove

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 the required scope and HTTP method, which is useful, but 'Body shape per the API reference' offloads the most important behavioral detail to an external document.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then scope and version in compact lines. The 'Body shape per the API reference' line is a non-statement that consumes space without informing.

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 and an undefined payload shape, the description should clarify what the body must contain and what happens on partial/empty input. It covers scope and version but leaves the critical request shape unresolved.

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 baseline is 3. However, the payload is an untyped anyOf(object|array) and the description only says 'Body shape per the API reference,' adding no real meaning about what identifiers the body must contain.

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: 'Remove customers from a price table.' An agent can distinguish it from customers_add/list and categories_remove/variants_remove by the resource named. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, so a 4 rather than 5.

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 use this versus customers_add or the categories/variants remove variants, and no prerequisites or side-effect warnings. The required scope (write_products) and API version are context, not usage guidance.

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