Variants 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 structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the business-rule constraint on last-variant deletion, the required OAuth scope (write_products), and the pinned API version. It does not state what happens to dependent data or the response shape, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 and the key constraint in the first two sentences; the trailing HTTP/scope/version lines are reference boilerplate but short and clearly separated. Nothing is wasted, though the metadata lines are not strictly essential to calling the tool correctly.

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 delete with no output schema, the definition covers the precondition, auth scope, and endpoint. The only gap is what the call returns (e.g. 204 empty body vs. a deleted variant payload), which matters slightly for a destructive operation but is minor given the annotation coverage.

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% with both required parameters documented, so the schema carries the semantic load. The HTTP line echoes the same two identifiers in path position but adds no format, type-coercion, or ID-sourcing detail beyond the schema; baseline 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 variant') and immediately differentiates from sibling mutation tools by naming the one case where deletion is impossible (the sole variant of a product). An agent can distinguish this from tiendanube_variants_update or tiendanube_products_delete without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear exclusion rule: the only variant of a product cannot be deleted, which prevents the most likely misuse. It does not name an alternative (e.g. 'use variants_update to change it instead' or 'delete the product instead'), so the when-to-use-otherwise guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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