vtex_delete_product

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a product' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but it doesn't specify critical details like required permissions, whether deletion is permanent or soft, what happens to associated SKUs or inventory, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.

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 extremely concise at three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information 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?

Given the tool's complexity (a destructive deletion operation), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, success/failure responses, or system impacts, which are crucial for safe invocation. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for these missing contextual elements.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'productId' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or sourcing instructions), so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and the target resource ('a product'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other deletion tools in the sibling list (like vtex_delete_brand, vtex_delete_category, etc.), which would require mentioning it's specifically for products rather than other entity types.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing the product ID), when not to use it (e.g., if the product has dependencies), or what alternatives exist (like vtex_archive_promotion for non-destructive removal). The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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