play_delete_inapp_productDeletes an in-app product from Google Play Console by its SKU and package name. Remove an existing product when it is no longer sold or needs cleanup.
Deletes an in-app product by SKU.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sku | Yes | Product SKU / product id | |
| packageName | Yes | Play Console package name, e.g. "com.example.app" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost nothing: it does not say the deletion is irreversible, whether the product must first be inactive, whether an edit must be open, or what permissions are required. Only the bare fact of a destructive operation is conveyed by the verb itself.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the resource and identifier front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized, though it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than maximally informative.
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 mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and a sibling set that revolves around a Play edit lifecycle, the description omits the context an agent needs to call it safely or correctly. It is not complete enough for the risk profile of the operation.
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%, so both packageName and sku are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description reinforces sku as the identifying key but adds no format, validation, or packageName context beyond the schema.
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 ("Deletes an in-app product") plus the lookup key ("by SKU"), so the agent knows exactly what it does. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like play_delete_edit or play_delete_listing, but the resource noun is unambiguous enough that confusion is unlikely.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no mention of the Play edit lifecycle that governs all other play_* mutation tools, and no pointer to alternatives or prerequisites. The agent is left to infer that this is the destructive counterpart to play_create_inapp_product.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.