category_delete

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

Adds important context beyond annotations: force requirement, orphaning of products (not deleting them), and potential rejection if child categories exist. Annotations already indicate destructive, but description enriches understanding.

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 three concise sentences, each providing essential information. It is front-loaded with the action and endpoint, and no unnecessary words are present.

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?

Covers core usage and side effects, but lacks explanation of site and category_id parameters and does not mention return behavior (e.g., success response). Given no output schema, describing the result 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It only partially addresses 'force' by noting it must be true, but does not explain 'site' or 'category_id'. The default of force is false, which conflicts with the requirement stated in the description.

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 explicitly states the action (delete a category) and includes the HTTP method and endpoint, making the purpose very clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, update, list, and get.

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?

It specifies that force=true is required and warns about children causing rejection, providing clear preconditions. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like deleting children first or using a different approach.

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