delete_variant

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, but it only states that the tool deletes a variant. It fails to disclose whether the operation is destructive/irreversible, whether it cascades to inventory levels or line items, what happens to associated data, or what the response format is. For a destructive mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 concise sentence that states the core purpose with no wasted words. It's appropriately terse for what it communicates, though it could add useful behavioral context in the same concise style.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero param schema coverage, the description is under-specified. It should mention the irreversible nature of the action, the need for correct product_id/variant_id pairing, and what happens to dependent entities (inventory, order line items referencing the variant). The tool performs a destructive action on a key commerce entity, so more context is warranted.

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?

Both parameters (product_id, variant_id) have zero schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, the description doesn't explicitly explain that product_id identifies the parent product and variant_id identifies the variant to delete, though the identifier semantics are fairly self-evident from parameter names. The description adds minimal value 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?

The description 'Delete a variant from a product' uses a specific verb (Delete) and resource (variant), and is clear about the target. It distinguishes from siblings like create_variant and update_variant by using the 'Delete' verb, though it doesn't mention consequences like removing inventory or associated data.

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 is provided about when to use this tool vs alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., whether the variant must exist, whether product must exist), or warnings about the irreversible nature of deletion. There's no exclusion guidance naming alternative tools for related operations.

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