Products Delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint/idempotentHint, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the deletion is permanent and cascades to variants and images, plus the required write_products scope and pinned API version. It stops short of stating irreversibility recovery options or rate limits.

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 destructive behavior in the first sentence, then compact HTTP/scope/version metadata. Slightly terse boilerplate lines but each carries operational value.

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 delete with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the necessary consequence, endpoint, and auth scope. Only explicit alternative routing is missing.

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 'id' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description only references '{id}' via the HTTP path and adds no format or meaning beyond the schema's 'Product ID'.

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+resource ('Permanently delete a product') and explicitly scopes the cascade ('with all its variants and images'), which distinguishes it from siblings like tiendanube_variants_delete and tiendanube_product_images_delete.

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?

The destructive scope implies when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling to prefer (e.g., deleting only a variant or image). No prerequisites or warnings beyond the scope line.

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