tiendanube_product_images_deleteDeletes a specific image from a Tiendanube product by product ID and image ID, removing outdated or incorrect product media via the API.
Delete a product image. HTTP: DELETE /products/{product_id}/images/{id} Required scope: write_products API version: 2025-03
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Image ID | |
| product_id | Yes | Product ID |
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 openWorldHint, so the risk profile is covered structurally; the description still adds real value by naming the required OAuth scope (write_products), the HTTP verb/endpoint and the API version. It stops short of saying whether the image is permanently removed or whether it can be restored.
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, followed by endpoint, scope and API version — every line carries distinct operational information with no filler.
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 two-parameter destructive endpoint with full annotation coverage and no output schema, this is close to sufficient: it gives auth scope, endpoint and version. The only meaningful gap is the consequence of deletion (permanent removal, effect on remaining images/ordering).
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% for both parameters, so the schema already carries 'Image ID' and 'Product ID'. The endpoint template reinforces that both are path parameters, which is a minor addition over the schema; nothing on format or accepted ID types goes beyond it.
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 product image") and pairs it with the concrete endpoint, so there is no ambiguity against siblings like product_images_update or product_images_create. It does not explicitly name a sibling to prefer in borderline cases, but the operation is unambiguous from the name plus description.
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 can infer this is the call to remove an existing image, and the scope note (write_products) signals the prerequisite. However, there is no explicit guidance on when-not to use it versus product_images_update (e.g., to detach vs. delete) and no warning about irreversibility.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.