delete_productRemove a product from your e-commerce catalog by providing its unique numeric ID. Returns true when the deletion succeeds, false if the product is not found.
Delete a product using its unique ID(number). Returns true if deletion was successful, false otherwise.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| success | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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 states the operation and return value, but does not mention potential side effects, irreversibility, error behavior for non-existent IDs, or any authorization requirements.
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 short and front-loaded, clearly stating the action and the parameter. The return value is mentioned efficiently. No unnecessary filler is present, though the phrasing 'ID(number)' is slightly 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 simple one-parameter deletion tool, the description covers the core action, the required input, and the return behavior. However, because there are no annotations, a brief note about the destructive nature or behavior when the ID is not found would improve completeness.
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%, so the description must compensate. It only restates that 'id' is a unique ID number, adding little beyond the schema's integer type and exclusiveMinimum constraint. It does not clarify where the ID comes from or how it should be obtained.
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 a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a product') and identifies the exact method (by unique ID). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like add_product, get_product_by_id, and update_product.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. The intended use is implied by the name and description, but the tool does not explicitly differentiate itself or mention prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.