Delete a Meta product catalog

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, it discloses irreversible deletion, no archive/undo/transfer, the cascade to product sets and ad sets, the read-back result semantics (never Meta's acknowledgement), and the credit cost. This provides deep behavioral context with no contradiction.

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?

The description is lengthy but every sentence earns its place—topics flow from permanence to consequences to confirmation requirements to the prerequisite call to result interpretation and cost. The purpose is front-loaded, and the structure is logical and dense without fluff.

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?

It covers the entire operational workflow: prerequisite blast radius call, confirmation semantics for non-empty vs. empty catalogs, the live product set block behavior, read-back result interpretation, and cost. No essential information is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds crucial rationale: confirmName proves inspection, confirmChildren when asked, and the live product set override risk. It explains why each safety parameter exists, going well beyond the schema's mechanical descriptions.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource — 'PERMANENTLY delete a product catalog' — and immediately distinguishes its destructive, irreversible nature from any other catalog-related tool. It names meta_catalog_blast_radius as a prerequisite, clearly separating the delete action from the inspection tool.

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?

It explicitly instructs to call meta_catalog_blast_radius first and details when confirmName is required (any catalog that holds anything) vs. an empty catalog's one-call delete. It also warns about allowDeleteWithLiveProductSet and not to set it without disclosure, giving clear when-to and when-not-to guidance.

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