ecommerce_deleteAProductV1

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the destructive cascade (product and its variants) and the important edge-case exception: subscription products with active subscribers are archived instead of deleted. This gives an agent the key behavioral context needed to set expectations, though it does not mention permissions or permanence beyond the word 'Delete.'

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by disclosing the archive exception. Nothing is redundant or wasteful.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it states the action, the scope (variants), and the critical edge case. Minor gaps such as irreversibility and error conditions are not explicitly mentioned, but the word 'Delete' plus the archive exception covers the most important context an agent needs.

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?

The schema already fully documents both parameters (store_id and product_id) with clear descriptions, and the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Delete a product and its variants from the store.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ecommerce_deleteAProductVariantV1 and ecommerce_updateAProductV1. The added nuance about subscription products with active subscribers being archived also clarifies the exact scope of the operation.

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 description states what the tool does and implies it is for deleting whole products rather than individual variants, but it never explicitly names when to use this tool versus a sibling. No exclusions or direct alternatives are provided.

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