Remove upgrade path

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

The description says 'Remove' which implies a destructive action, but the annotations declare destructiveHint=false. This is a direct contradiction, and the description does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as reversibility or side effects.

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 a single concise sentence that conveys the core action without any filler. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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?

Although the tool is simple with full schema coverage, the contradiction with destructiveHint leaves the behavior unclear. The description also lacks any mention of return values or consequences, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the operation.

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% with descriptions for both parameters, so the schema fully explains product_id and migration_product_id. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so 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 clearly states the action ('Remove') and the resource ('upgrade path from a product'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_upgrade_paths and set_upgrade_paths. It is specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention excludes or prerequisites. It simply states what it does without context.

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