Price Tables Variants Remove

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful items not in annotations: the required write_products scope (an auth requirement) and the API version, but it says nothing about whether the removed variants are recoverable or what the response contains.

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 and no filler. The telegraphic style is efficient, though the line-per-fact layout reads more like a stub than a guided description.

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 definition is only partly adequate: the auth scope is stated, but the request payload shape is punted to an external API reference, leaving the agent unable to construct a correct call from the available information alone.

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 both parameters are documented structurally. The description adds no meaning beyond that — 'Body shape per the API reference' defers to an external document the agent cannot read, and the payload schema itself only says 'object or array identifying what to remove', leaving the actual field shape unspecified.

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 variants from a price table'), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like variants_add, variants_update, and variants_list. It does not explicitly call out the removal scope (e.g. bulk vs single) but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus variants_update, categories_remove, or customers_remove, nor any stated preconditions. The HTTP endpoint and scope hint at the operation's context but do not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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