delete_product

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet only the verb "Delete" implies destructiveness — information already in the name. It says nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, or side effects on related images, stock, or documents that reference the product.

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 short clause with the action front-loaded and zero filler. Its brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification for a destructive operation.

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, non-annotated tool with no output schema, the description is too thin — it omits permanence warnings, failure conditions, and what happens to dependent resources. An agent could invoke it correctly but without understanding the consequences.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage, "Product ID to delete"). The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Delete a product"), which is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like delete_service, delete_document, or delete_warehouse, and the "(Holded API v2)" tag is provenance rather than disambiguation.

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 guidance on when to use this versus update_product, or archived alternatives. No prerequisites stated, such as whether the product must have no pending documents or stock before deletion.

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