payware_products_delete_audio

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description nevertheless adds real value by stating the deletion 'cannot be undone' and by specifying the exact server response (403) for non-PRM plans. It does not say what happens to dependent entities such as airings or placements that reference the audio.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then irreversibility, then the plan gate. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is redundant.

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 with full annotation coverage, no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the key unknowns: irreversibility and plan-based authorization failure. Minor gap in not describing downstream effects on products/airings that reference the deleted audio.

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 100%, documenting productId pattern, audioId, partnerId default, privateKey auth and useSandbox, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema — no clarification of the auth parameters or sandbox behavior.

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 precise verb+resource pair ('Delete an audio file from a product'), which cleanly separates it from sibling operations like register_audio, update_audio and get_audio without needing to name them. The bracket-tagged '[Merchant]' scope marker further disambiguates the audience.

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?

Provides a hard prerequisite — Premium (PRM) plan only, with a 403 returned otherwise, and clarifies the ISV case (the merchant's plan, not the caller's). It lacks explicit routing to alternatives (e.g. use update_audio to modify rather than delete, or get_audio to verify existence first), so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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