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 covered. The description adds a concrete rate limit (100 requests / 10 seconds per shop), which is genuine behavioral context not present in annotations. It does not, however, state whether removal is permanent or reversible, which is the key unknown 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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the constraint (rate limit) is front-loaded ahead of the action. Slightly odd ordering for a purpose statement, but nothing is wasted.

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, non-idempotent tool with six parameters including a nested request body and no output schema, the description covers purpose and rate limiting but omits permanence/reversibility and the choice among fileUrl, payload, and payload_file. The rich schema carries much of the burden, keeping this at a minimum-viable level rather than inadequate.

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 (including the account and confirm semantics). The description contributes the fact that the file is identified by URL, which maps to fileUrl, but it does not clarify the interaction between fileUrl, payload, and payload_file, which is the real ambiguity in this schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Removes a digital file from the product') and adds the lookup key ('by its file URL'), which distinguishes it from upload-oriented siblings like confirm_digital_file_upload and request_digital_file_upload_url. It does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer, but the action and identifier are 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 only guidance is a rate limit, not a when-to-use statement. There is no indication of prerequisites, no mention of when to use this versus the other digital-file or media-removal tools (e.g., remove_product_images), and no exclusions. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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