Delete Product

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by disclosing the concrete failure condition (referential integrity with invoices/accounting records), the permanence, and the recommended alternative. Annotation already flags destructiveness; the description adds the operational constraint an agent needs.

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, front-loaded with the permanence warning, then the failure condition and alternative, then the intended use case. Zero 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 single-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema and destructiveHint=true, the description supplies exactly the missing context: irreversibility, failure mode, alternative path, and scope of intended use. Nothing an agent needs 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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is documented as 'Object ID' with constraints in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies (0-param/simple-case rules push to 3-4; described param already covered).

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?

Specific verb ('delete') + resource ('product/service') with an explicit 'Permanently' qualifier that distinguishes it from the soft-delete sibling deactivate_product. An agent can tell exactly what this does and how it differs from nearby tools.

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?

Explicit when-not condition: 'Fails if the product is referenced by invoices... use deactivate_product to hide an in-use product instead.' Also states the intended use case ('mistakenly-created master data with no history'). Alternative tool is named with the selecting condition.

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