Remove a digital file from a product

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds a rate limit (100 req/10s per shop), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose consequences of removal (e.g., permanent deletion, effect on existing purchases) or any authentication requirements beyond what annotations imply, leaving gaps for a destructive operation.

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 very concise: a rate-limit line and a single sentence stating the purpose. It is front-loaded with the rate limit and then the core action. No extraneous information, though the rate limit could be considered slightly tangential to the core purpose.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description is minimal. It states what it does and a rate limit, but omits important context such as whether the removal is permanent, what happens to associated downloads, or any required permissions. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the description could provide more operational context to help an agent understand the full impact.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description mentions 'by its file URL', which corresponds to the fileUrl parameter, but adds no format details or constraints beyond what the schema provides. With high coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Removes') and resource ('digital file from the product') and specifies the identifier ('by its file URL'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'remove_product_images' or 'confirm_digital_file_upload', but the resource (digital file) and operation (remove) are specific enough to distinguish it.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., digital file must exist), conflicts with other tools, or conditions under which removal should occur. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and purpose.

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