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. It clearly states the action is permanent and irreversible, giving the agent the critical safety information needed before invoking a destructive operation. It doesn't mention side effects (e.g., associated variants/inventory behavior), but the permanence warning is the key behavioral trait and is explicitly disclosed.

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 concise sentences that deliver the full message: what the tool does and the critical safety warning. Zero filler, every word earns its place. Perfectly front-loaded with the core action.

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 operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential elements: what it deletes, how it's identified, and the permanence warning. It doesn't describe associated-resource cascade behavior, but for a simple delete-by-ID tool, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it safely and correctly.

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?

With only 1 parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no documentation for the 'id' field beyond its type (string). The description states 'by id' and clarifies it refers to the product ID, which adds context. However, with a single obvious parameter named 'id' and the description explicitly mentioning 'by id', the baseline is adequate even without schema coverage — the description names the parameter's semantic meaning.

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 verb (delete), the resource (product), and the identifier used (by id). It's unambiguous about the action and target. However, it only differentiates from siblings like delete_variant through the explicit 'product' resource, which is clear enough given the sibling names.

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 explicitly states 'This is permanent' and instructs to 'confirm with the user first.' This provides a clear when-to-use guardrail: the agent should confirm with the user before invoking, distinguishing this destructive action from read-only sibling tools. It also implicitly signals this is NOT for variants (delete_variant exists separately).

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