category_delete

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

The description adds important behavioral details beyond the annotations: products are orphaned (not deleted) and the operation may be rejected for categories with child categories. The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description aligns with that.

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 extremely concise—two sentences front-load the purpose and key conditions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the destructive behavior and a rejection condition, but does not mention return values, success/error responses, or any other behavioral implications. Since there is no output schema, more context would be helpful.

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?

The input schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only adds context for the 'force' parameter (requires force=true), but does not explain 'site' or 'category_id', leaving meaning ambiguous.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete a category') and includes the exact HTTP endpoint. It also specifies that products are orphaned, which uniquely distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like category_update or category_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 mentions that force=true is required and that deletion may be rejected if the category has child categories, providing usage conditions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like category_update or category_create.

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