modx_ms2_delete_product_link

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It states "Remove" but does not disclose irreversibility, required permissions, whether the link is removed in one or both directions, or what happens if the triplet matches no existing link. For a destructive operation this is a meaningful 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?

A single compact sentence with the action front-loaded and the identifying key in parentheses. It is efficient and readable, though the parenthetical is terse enough that it adds little beyond the schema.

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, all-required-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition should at minimum state the effect of success and the consequence of a non-matching triplet. It leaves both unspecified, so an agent lacks enough context to call it confidently.

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 coverage is 100% and each of the three parameters already documents its meaning (link type id, master product id, slave product id). The description only restates that these three together identify the link, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. 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?

The description gives a specific verb plus resource ("Remove a product link") and clarifies that the record is identified by the link type, master, and slave triple. This clearly separates it from modx_ms2_create_product_link and modx_ms2_list_product_links, though it omits the context that this is a miniShop2 product relation rather than a generic link.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus related tools (e.g., deleting a link type or updating a link), no prerequisites, and no note about checking an existing link first via modx_ms2_list_product_links before removal. Usage is only implied by the verb "Remove".

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