Delete a product across channels

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it operates on 'mapped product across selected channels' and can be 'permanently' deleted, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose the approval token requirement, the two-phase confirmation flow (PREVIEW/EXECUTE), or any external side effects, leaving behavioral transparency only partially enhanced beyond annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the action ('Preview or permanently delete') and the object ('mapped product across selected channels'). It is concise with no redundant information, making it easy to parse.

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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, the tool is complex: it contains a nested command object with safety mechanisms (approval_token, expected_external_ids, idempotency_key) and a dual preview/execution mode. The description is far too brief to explain the required workflow—such as previewing before deleting or needing an approval token—leaving an agent without enough context to safely and correctly invoke this destructive tool.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters such as sku, channels, confirm, dry_run, approval_token, confirm_delete, idempotency_key, or expected_external_ids. The phrase 'Preview or permanently delete' vaguely relates to the confirm/dry_run fields but gives no meaningful semantics, so an agent has no guidance on how to fill these fields correctly.

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 uses the specific verb 'delete' and identifies the resource as 'a mapped product across selected channels,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like product_update, product_stop, and product_resume. It also introduces two modes—'Preview or permanently delete'—which adds precision about the tool's capability.

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 implies the tool is for deleting mapped products from channels, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over product_stop or product_resume, nor does it mention prerequisites like having a mapped product or an approval token. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with alternatives.

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